Just an ordinary myopic internet enjoyer.
Can also be found at lemmy.zip, lemmy.dbzer0, lemmy.world, and piefed.social.
Formerly found at Kbin.social.
Transitioning this account to lemmy.zip because of the impending lemm.ee shutdown on 2025 June 30
I didn't get it until I started trying to say "hot potato" in the middle of a sentence, like "Look out! Hot potato incoming!"
The 't' in "hot" became more and more like a glottal stop as my tongue started to touch the gums of my top front teeth less and less.
I've tried to discern the context in which you're asking this question, but based on the OP and their replies, I think it's not so much about outlining than it is organizing details and thoughts before writing the initial rough draft. I might be wrong and that the OP already knows about what I'd laid down below, but I hope even if it doesn't help the OP, it might be of help to someone.
Outlining is basically trying to organize your thoughts and all the details mapped out before writing. I assume that all the details are already laid out in one form or the other, and now it's time to put them into order. What order things would be put into depends on what is being described or being explained.
If I were to describe a house's interior, I might go from the main door, then proceeding as if I'm physically walking through the house, and then describing objects I encounter as if I'm panning the camera.
If I'm describing a person, I might go with the basic biographical details first, then an overview of their achievements, then personal life. Within each heading, for example, their personal life, I might go chronologically.
If I'm describing a process, I might go with an overview of what the process is for, what are its inputs, steps needed to prepare the inputs for the process, and then the process itself in chronological order. Within each step, I might go into the reasoning behind having to do this step, or why this step must go before (or after) some other step.
If I'm describing an idea, I might go for a general definition first, then go more specific, discussing what makes each specific definition different from the others. I might then go for a quick historical overview of how this idea came into being, what ideas have led to this idea, and the thinkers that have contributed to building up this idea.
That is, there's a lot of approaches you can use to organize your ideas. You can organize your ideas or details based on location. That is, organizing details spatially, like describing a house's interior. You can organize your ideas based on time, which came first, which comes next, like describing a process. You can also organize your ideas from most general to the most specific (or vice versa, though starting with the most detailed first might require more concentration on part of the reader). One can use these and any other methods of organization you can think of so long as it makes sense given the context.
How you might organize your ideas or details would depend on what you're trying to achieve in the first place, and some methods are more suited than others depending on the topic. Lengthier works might even require a mix of these techniques. For example, if I were to describe a city for a D&D campaign, I might describe its layout first, laying out the details as if I were walking through the city. Then, I might describe its government structure from the widest in scope to the narrowest. Is it part of a kingdom? How is the city itself governed? Are there any districts, if so, how are they governed?. I would then give an overview of its history—in chronological order, of course. Any other detail that might be of use (for the DM or the players) can then be listed in order of most prominent or well-known to the least.
Now as a demonstration, I'll attempt to outline this response:
- Foreword and disclaimer
- Basic overview of outlining
- Examples
- Describing a house
- Describing a person
- Describing a process
- Describing an idea
- Organizing detail
- Based on space/location
- Based on time/chronology
- Based on generality/specificity
- Combination of approaches and others
- Demonstration
A source close to the Pope told CNN that the phrase could also be understood as there is a “gay climate” in the seminaries.
I wonder why.... Surely it isn't because a seminary is a good place for a confused, self-hating homosexual to be in, right? Surely it isn't because being gay was seen as so anathema in Catholic-dominant societies that the seminary seems to be a sanctuary, right?
There's this saying “a fish is caught through its mouth,” and this is an illustration of what it means. This pope might present this ‘cool’, ‘modern’ image to the public, but his words spoken in private amongst his peers reveals his real stance about these things.
Edit: proofreading.
This might pale in comparison with all the other replies here, but one incident really made me uneasy.
I was seated inside a train minding my own business. I was wearing a loose shirt and an even looser pair of walking shorts. The shorts were made of thin and glossy material. It wasn't thin enough to expose my underwear but it readily shows any bumps or whatnot.
The train wasn't that full, and there were lots of empty seats. The train had longitudinal seating (two rows of seats facing each other, with some standing space in between. There's also an area where the train can "bend". This area has no seats of course. I was seated next to this "bendy area".
I remember having difficulty staying awake and was seated in an increasingly loose way. I caught a glimpse of a guy standing in front of me. He was leaning against the train walls and was on his phone.
Now, the train isn't the most quiet, but I distinctly heard an unmistakeable camera sound which jolted me awake. Selfie cameras on phones wasn't yet a thing back then and the way his phone is oriented, I can see the phone's camera lens pointed at me. The guy, noticing that I noticed the sound, quickly put the phone back in his pocket.
I might be wrong, I hope I was wrong, but I thought a stranger took a photo of me just a meter or two away from me.
That's it. Kinda underwhelming, I suppose but I was kept wondering why that guy, if it's indeed the case, took a picture of me.
Investigators also spoke to the priest, who said the woman had been told at an earlier Mass on Sunday that she had not fulfilled all the requirements for receiving communion and could not participate, officials said.
When she returned for a later service, the priest says she “attacked” him and “grabbed” a tray of communion wafers from his hands, the affidavit says.
“She informed the priest she did in fact do the steps necessary and is now accepted by God, thus, granting her the ability to participate,” an affidavit reports.
That’s when the priest “became upset and tried to ram the ‘cookie’ in her mouth,” she told police.
“In response ... she attempted to grab another communion bread which (the priest) was holding. However, (he) grabbed her and bit her arm,” the affidavit says.
AFAIK, the priest does have the power to refuse communion to someone. But then again, a quick online search to confirm this gave me the following:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
(Taken from https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann879-958_en.html#TITLE_III)
Not a Roman Catholic priest, let alone a Roman Catholic canon lawyer, but I think any baptized Catholic can take communion unless:
- They are excommunicated.
- Explicitly declared to be barred from participating in the sacrament of communion.
- Obviously manifesting grave sin.
And then, Catholics are enjoined to refrain from participating from mass or receiving communion if they're aware of committing a grave sin and haven't yet done the sacrament of confession.
The only way I can justify the priest's prior actions given all this is if the woman has been explicitly (visible to all the people in the church) committing grave sin. Or is known by the congregation that the woman is committing grave sin.
However, from the other places, it seems that the advice is to privately convince the person to refrain from participating in communion. Assuming the priest has done this in that previous mass, and the woman escalated the situation by reaching for the communion wafers, I could understand the priest going wild. Afterall, the priest has a duty to ensure the sanctity of the communion wafers.
That the priest's first impulse in this situation is to bite the woman still is funny to me though. Was his hands and arms already otherwise occupied?
Of course, all I've said above (TL;DR: the priest can possibly bar someone from participating in the holy communion, that the priest has a duty of keeping the sanctity of the consecrated hosts) still doesn't excuse the priest from being charged with assault and battery. I feel this part needs to be said out loud.
And since I'm already quoting the Roman Catholic Canon law, I think this one's most apropos:
Can. 909 A priest is not to neglect to prepare himself properly through prayer for the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice and to offer thanks to God at its completion.
Before, I use
Activefor my subscriptions, andTop DayorTop Weekfor theAllfeed. Currently, I useScaledfor my subscriptions andAllfeed unchanged (Top DayorTop Week). I just like how I can take a peek atAlland looking at the day's or week's top posts while mostly keeping to my subscriptions.I sometimes look at
Top 12 hoursorTop 1 hourin myAllfeed, but rarely.Yeah, as far as I've seen, that's the vibe: Esperanto isn't perfect, it can be improved, but it works and changing it would introduce confusion and would make it harder to learn.
I also sense this unease among the Esperanto-speaking community with regards to changing anything in the language. That allowing any one of the proposed changes will lead to a slippery slope of accommodating any and all proposed changes.
And then there's the fact that not many of these changes have gained foothold amongst the community (perhaps due to the aforementioned unease in changing anything about the language).
Esperanto has no grammatical gender, indeed. However, it isn't as gender neutral. For example, the word for "woman" (virino) derives from the word for "man" (viro). Lots of other words referring to females (humans or otherwise) can be derived that way. Examples include:
- patro (father) → patrino (mother)
- onklo (uncle) → onklino (aunt)
- kuzo (cousin) → kuzino (niece)
- kato (cat) → katino (female cat)
- hundo (dog) → hundino (female dog)
This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it helps with the learning of the language by making it easy to derive words from existing ones, but it also makes it easy for someone ascribe sexism in the language. There's also no agreed-upon way to make words gender-neutral. There's a lot of proposals such as listed in this wikipedia article on Esperanto gender reform but I don't think there's been a consensus other than "don't change it!"
Of all the claims Esperanto has, I think "one can easily learn it" is the one that has most ground to stand on. It's been a while since I've dabbled in the language and I can still read and listen to it without much trouble (save for having to look up some of the more specialized vocabulary).
"Going into Happyland" sounds like a great euphemism. I'm going to steal it if you don't mind.
And that's perhaps the most peaceful peace. A peace only nothingness can bring.
There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.
From the article:
She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.
Whether we agree with her or not, it's her decision.
And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.
Indeed, that's not what exactly what I meant. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
My main point can be summarized in that second to the last paragraph, which I doubt has communicated things adequately.
To reiterate: it won't be initiated by the medical professionals. They're simply there to ensure that someone applying for this procedure are indeed "proceeding of their own accord and have made sure options have been considered". The waiting period is there to make sure that not only they've arrived at this decision after careful deliberation, but also to force them to consider and try out the options available to them. The process can be terminated at any point by the patient, and the final step will not proceed without their permission.
My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved.
I accept this point. This is why I put the emphasis on the decision of the patient. And this is where I think our positions fundamentally differ. Promising treatments may or may not be there, may or may not be there in the immediate or far future, but it's on the patient to consider. The medical professionals are there to ensure that the patient has considered available options, and have exerted reasonable effort to improve their situation. Whether or not the patient has made "the correct decision" isn't the point—but rather whether or not the patient has made an informed and well-thought-out decision.
I share your opinion that in an ideal world, this shouldn't even be needed. That even though the option would be there for anyone to take, no one will take it in an ideal world. But we are not in such an ideal world. We can strengthen our social safety nets to help people suffering from the debilitating effects of mental illness (among other sources of suffering), and that will do a lot of good, but until we arrive at a society which no longer needs a dignified exit because no one ever wants to exit, I am of the opinion of giving them that option.
Ah, thanks for that clarification. That much I can agree with in general.
This might be a hot take for an anime enjoyer, but what immunity are they talking about here? Immunity against nudity? Fanservice?
I'm leaning more towards "people losing immunity towards nudity (in shows)" but that's one extreme. If every show on Earth has people fully-clothed, covered from hair to toe, and porn is relegated to an extreme taboo that one would go to great lengths and at great risk to access (kinda like Shimoneta, I guess?) then maybe? But even then, sex is such a human need that people will find ways.
Now, this might be a wild shot in the dark, but if they're talking about lack of fanservice leading to people not having sex, uh.... Japan has a lot of problems with young people not having enough children, but I don't think lack of fanservice has anything to do with it, and more about the pressures and bleak prospects.
IDK, I just don't get it and maybe someone who has access to the original interview quoted here can clarify things?
I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:
People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”
Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That's not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.
We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.
In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they've tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn't have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn't have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one's condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they've been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.
If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.
Oh, sorry, I've been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don't have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there'd be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they're in) can sign up.
The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they'd ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I'd be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I'm completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I'm lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I'm continuing the process, then I'd choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!
Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn't even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can't be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.
EDIT: Some proofreading.
I find it more difficult to read text that are short, concise, but using lots of specialized vocabulary. However, a problem about the second choice is making it simple in words, but structured in such a way that ensures both attention and comprehension.
The problem with walls of text, and a problem I also encounter in stuff I write myself, is how there's just a wall of text. A string of lengthy paragraphs consisting of long sentences that just go on and on without providing the reader a place to pause. That is: a point in which the reader can stop, check for comprehension or just a breather.
Reading such a block of text can be tiring.
I've been taught to employ a variety of sentence and paragraph lengths, and try to apply them to my writing. However, this can run the risk of making the result disjointed and rambly. I am guilty of this myself. I realize that this just means I didn't take the time to collect and organize my thoughts before typing things out. It can be as simple as thinking about what I want to say in the first place, or it can be as involved as thinking about the main point and any supporting points, and how I can lay them out such that they flow neatly in the result.
Longer texts can be improved with just a bit more care in their composition, and without it, walls of text are definitely a chore to read.
EDIT:
I should proofread before hitting
post.Thanks as well. It's certainly a POV I didn't consider (that it's akin to a protest) having grown up in the culture that produced such practices. Again, thanks!
NO
Neither do I self-identify as a tankie, I don't think anyone who'd identify themselves as tankies would think of me as one.