Sometimes, sadly, giving up is the right thing to do.

I get it, but if you are just trying to make the point that, if a country thinks they’ll eventually lose, it’s better for everyone if they give up quickly … then this historical example doesn’t seem relevant.

Given that Ukraine already gave up quickly once (in Crimea) and that Russia simply waited until it was convenient to invade them again, I’m sure you can understand why Ukrainians think it’s necessary to fight this one out.

Now, the war of the Triple Alliance is often held up as an example of how a minority of belligerents can create massive devastation by continuing a guerilla war after losing the conventional war; if Ukraine seems in danger of losing the conventional war, I’ll admit it’s a relevant parallel, otherwise it isn’t terribly relevant.

Bro I’ve been on roundabouts less circular than your logic

Sorry I am finding it very difficult to follow your argument.

Can you explain what “international law” you believe US sanctions to have broken?

Ok. Go ahead and show they’re not. Give me a single circumstance where “shit” is unacceptable and “crap” is totally fine.

My dude, re-read the comment for a sec. A doctor saying they need a “shit sample” or a “cup of your crap” would both be much more shocking than a stool sample.

… that’s the point.

The third one isn’t really off-putting because of the word to me and is more about the attitude, even if they said something like “I don’t take flak from anyone” I’d have the same reaction.

Indeed, you’d have the same reaction if they said they don’t take “shit” from anyone.

You are making my point on all three examples: the direct reference to making a bowel movement is vulgar, there’s no situation where “crap” is totally fine and “shit” is not… because crap is only very mildly less vulgar than shit, they are both vulgar references to feces.

I can keep on coming up with examples. The doctor says, “I need a stool sample,” vs. the doctor saying, “I need a sample of your crap, please.” Substitute shit and it is not particularly more shocking; neither works.

Give it a try: what’s an example where “shit” would be shocking, and “crap” would be totally acceptable?

That they can issue court orders to companies that do business in their territory?

They … they know…

No, not really… there are very few environments where it would not be appropriate to say “shit”, but “crap” would be acceptable. Try it out:

• You are at a job interview and you say, “Excuse me, where is the bathroom? I need to take a crap.”

• You are expressing your condolences about the passing of a friend to their family, and you say, “I have some of their crap I think you might want to keep in their memory.”

• A politician is giving a speech, and wants to emphasize that they’re a man of the people. They emphasize that they “don’t take crap from anyone.”

“It seems like there may be cultural differences between how Americans and people from the UK use the word… I know you guys want to chime in, but remember, this is a UK sub and that OP is looking for opinions from people from his country.”

People don’t react positively to gate keeping type behavior, particularly because this sub has no rules asking Americans not to participate. You have a valid point (that OP is here because they want to know the cultural norms in the country that they live in), so it’s more effective to just make that point.

BTW, I don’t know what these folks are talking about… “crap” has essentially the exact same meaning and connotation in the US as in the UK.

In the US, it is also considered a slightly less vulgar version of shit.

I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t think of it as a very mild “bad word” in the US, and I’ve lived across most of the country. Growing up in a very permissive household can mask that, but if you look it up in the dictionary you’ll find it labeled “mildly vulgar” or something similar.

Don’t be a jerk, there are much more effective ways of saying this.

“If you want to restore this, like, ‘primordial’ forest, don’t you also want to restore our relationship with that forest?” he asked. “Like — what’s your relationship to a transgenic chestnut?”

This is a quote by Patterson in the article, and it basically sums up this whole article.

No, no one is trying to restore a “primordial forest”, they’re trying to restore a tree that was the most common tree in America 50 years ago, which produces nutritious food that anyone can eat.

People don’t need to have an indigenous relationship with a plant to benefit from it or want to see it in place; you do not have to be Georgian or Armenian to love apple trees.

This story was such nonsense, because of how hard it tried to make this a story about indigenous peoples.

Every town I’ve ever visited on the eastern seaboard has chestnut streets and chestnut lanes because these trees were everywhere. My dad grew up when the blight had finally reached a tipping point and was quickly changing that; it wasn’t that long ago.

I respect everything Patterson is saying in this article, but not reintroducing the American Chestnut because it fails to right colonial wrongs is like not brushing your teeth because it doesn’t stop you from getting cancer.

In any event, if they’re reintroducing chestnuts I’m getting a couple for my property. I ate my first chestnut in my 40s (in Spain) and I’d love to have some in my retirement.

I’d recommend it! I have a lovely Japanese chestnut in my yard that I harvest every fall, I make chestnut puree and that shit is to die for.

For some of us at some times in our lives, having a relationship with two people is less work. It requires much more communication, better scheduling, and much more attention to your partners’ feelings … but that might be a good investment of time anyhow, and often gets overlooked.

I find that having multiple partners helps me appreciate each partner much more, for themselves – it’s easy to mix up how much you love just having a partner and being loved, with how you actually feel about that person. Poly gives you the distance and contrast to see your partners clearly, and that can be really special.

Yeah, this is my dynamic as well. My partner and I have been together for a decade and poly from the beginning. It’s not at all a secret, but people are so used to monogamy as a norm that they often just think our other partners are super close friends that hang out at our house a lot.

I’ve been in poly relationships most of my adult life, around 15 years now. I’m certainly familiar with the type of relationship you describe, but the long term, stable poly relationships are the ones that have been poly from the get go.

I don’t tend to date people who are “opening things up” in a previously monogamous relationship, because being someone’s learning experience is a bummer.

I’ve been in poly relationships for years. They work really well for me and my significant others, but we are pretty discreet about it because folks tend to be huge assholes about it.

Generally, you don’t see the poly relationships that work great; mostly, people see the type of scenario one of your other commenters described because the stable relationships are less visible.

We don’t! That’s the joy of it, just like people do, our algorithm will constantly waffle back and forth and argue with itself over whether these things are salads

I know, I was being humorous but it is in fact the way most categorization works. Very seldom is it a taxonomy; the way we recognize faces, voices, shapes, etc … it’s all probabilistic.