sanpedropeddler

Always is a real stretch, but I get your point. The reason is that being angry is easier than being happy.

I'm not aware of the supression of neurotransmission directly resulting in depression. I know alcohol does worsen depression, but I don't think that's a result of it being a depressant.

Here's an article that seems to agree with me.

In my experience at least, nicotine actually does alleviate anxiety. That is, until you become addicted to it and the anxiety you want to alleviate is caused by the substance itself.

I don't think a substance being a depressant necessarily says anything about its effect on actual depression, but otherwise I agree with your sentiment.

Obviously there are going to be more total enslaved people now, it scales with the population. The problem with looking at it that way is that it doesn't actually tell you if the situation is improving. All it tells you is that there are way more people now. That's why you look at a percentage. That will tell you how bad the problem was, how much better its gotten, and how much better it needs to get.

I'm not trying to argue that everything is ok because a smaller percentage of people are enslaved now. A percentage is simply the more useful method of measuring how common slavery is and comparing it to different times.

If you aren't accounting for the change in population and you're just comparing the estimated number of slaves, then you are definitely correct. However, I think its probably better to measure what percentage of the population is made up of slaves.

What is your definition of slavery that would mean there is more slavery now than before the civil war?

I've noticed the same thing between many generations regardless of chronology. I've also noticed it outside of the us. I think the root issue is that groups of people want other groups of people to be angry at.

I showed a bunch of children how to pirate geometry dash on their android tablets and they thought I was a wizard or something

I don't support either one because in many ways I think they are effectively the same. My views are certainly more in line with liberals and I think they are much less directly harmful than conservatives, but the parties themselves are more or less the same to me.

Neither of them effectively push the policy I want, and both purposely create an unnecessary divide between each other. They both need the other to be the antagonist to continue creating this strange dramatic version of politics.

Parts of my family refuses to speak to one another purely because of this. Their views aren't even that far off from each other, but neither of them actually understand each other's views. All they understand is the manufactured hate between each other.

Again, I think conservatives usually cause the most problems, but the other party can't exist in its current form without someone to be angry at. There is no actual motive to stop the problems from being caused, so they are only amplified and worsened.

Both are actively creating a worse place to live in, and I wouldn't support either one regardless of whatever views they claim to have.

I've been called a centrist for simply not supporting either party, so I was under the impression that was a common way of thinking about it.

Using that definition of centrism, I don't actually disagree with anything that was said here.

I understand the dislike for people that take no position whatsoever, but the hate for centrism I've seen extends beyond that. I've been called an enlightened centrist for simply not supporting either party, but I guess that might just mean those people were mistaken.