Yeah, I saw one yesterday for the first time during football because I typically avoid all the classic sources of commercials, and it was just two dude bros who looked like they were making a podcast sitting around saying “Yo, I don’t want all my tax money being used to give prisoners sex change operations”. And I thought, “who on earth would this possible convince to vote for Trump who wasn’t already absolutely going to?”

So if and when we make that happen, and we have a society free of that stuff, do we think everything will always be perfect and free of conflict and no one will break the (hopefully much improved) laws? That seems unlikely, so we’ll need some kind of way of keeping the order, right? Will it not be the responsibility of a specific job? Will there be people with that job but we won’t call them any of the names we currently have for that general job category?

I personally really enjoy how David and the skeletons either can’t out won’t elaborate on the parts of their whole thing that the people are confused about. There’s just something funny to me about how it doesn’t seem like they’re intentionally being obtuse. They’ll gladly answer the vague question of “and the skeletons are…?” with the equally vague “part of it!” with a big smile, as though it was a perfectly fine and helpful answer.

To give the original question answer slightly more (probably unfounded) credit, there are a lot of people out there who know the basics of what inflation is, but also seem to have a fundamental assumption that in a “normal” economy, wages will also increase at the same pace as inflation, resulting in a net zero effect on a person’s buying power overall. Even though, yes, things are always getting a little more expensive in absolute terms, they don’t seem more expensive. So the answer to the question someone with those assumptions might have actually been trying to ask is that even if inflation returns to a “normal” rate, wages have remained stagnant for a long time and aren’t keeping pace with inflation like they used to, so now things actually are more expensive in a relative sense.

I agree with your overall message of discussing things in a non-toxic way, but I would also caution people against being the friend in the group who seems to dislike everything. I’m not directing this at you specifically, but what you said reminded me of how I used to be and of other people I’ve known, where taking the negative position on whatever is being discussed is just what came naturally. Even if you manage to not be toxic about it, it will still get old after a while. I didn’t realize that’s how I was coming across until one day a friend exasperatedly asked me why I had to be so negative all the time. There’s bound to be plenty of things you can agree on liking with your friends or else it would be kind of weird for you to have become friends in the first place. For anyone else who tends to be the negative Nancy, I would recommend making a conscious effort to trade off between being the “for” and “against” side of your friend debates, so to speak.

Oh, hello