u/This_Caterpillar_330

People make such a big deal out of glyphosate. I'm sure it's harmful to people in the amount they're exposed to it (even moreso if they eat the peels, skins, etc.), but I'm curious how harmful it actually is and also how harmful the pesticides people are exposed to through organic agriculture.

I'm also curious how harmful the pollutants (lead, microplastics, arsenic, etc.) people are exposed to through the food they consume is in the US, especially when compared to the pesticide exposure.

The reason I ask is because so many media sources seem to like to freak people out about it and seem to often act like organic agriculture is harmless just because it doesn't use pesticides like glyphosate. I'm sure it's harmful, but I'm not sure HOW harmful it actually is.

There are supposed linguistic descriptivists online that pretend it's not important to try to use correct grammar as though it's okay for a person's text, comment, etc. to look like their keyboard had a stroke.

There are also supposed linguistic descriptivists online that ignore how terminology and definitions work as though the definition of a term is arbitrary and can be whatever they want, rather than trying to be accurate to what the term refers to. Like there's the idea of "lion" and there's the term "lion". The definition of "lion" should accurately reflect the idea of lion. Same with DNA, consciousness, neuroplasticity, etc.

They'll also act like it's not possible to use a scholarly term incorrectly or even, in some cases, words (e.g. sometimes people have trouble thinking of the right word and they'll end up misspeaking or using a similar word).

People seem to, from my perspective at least, mess up when it comes to the semantics of terms like that, at least going based off the Wikipedia pages.

The internet seems to often mess up when it comes to semantics, whether it's understanding terms, using the correct term, considering how others will perceive something, or persuasively helping others understand while taking into account where they're coming from. It's frustrating. Wage, piece work, etc. and whether Uber drivers are business owners or not are examples.

Algospeak is messing with my head. I try to avoid it, because I dislike the way algorithms and AI are affecting us.

The Wikipedia pages have been throwing me through a loop, and I suspect there may be specific ideological biases behind some of those terms or ideas, though I'm unsure.

Wasn't sure where else to ask this. This felt like the best place to ask.

And do they completely oppose the death penalty?

The problem keeps coming back. Sleep deprivation (which I also struggle with) and people I find attractive (or focusing on topics like relationships or something even slightly sexual) seem to trigger it. I feel unusually sensitive to it. It's frustrating.

I'm sure sleep would help, but for some reason, I have such a hard time putting my phone away, getting ready for bed on time, and going to sleep within my sleep window (even after reducing the psychology problems of my phone, apps, and websites, adjusting lights, and taking a contrast shower). The problem also shows up when I'm asleep.

Also, it feels like there are often many different problems that somehow occur or things I end up having to do around bedtime. Getting the right blankets (oops! wrong blankets, the blankets are in the dryer, or too many blankets after 20 minutes), adjusting the thermostat, making sure my phone is charged and on, responding to texts or calls that I have to answer from the same person (and then getting stuck on my phone), miscellaneous events that happen, sometimes having to turn the fan on temporarily and then off (and sometimes forgetting to do so), duties I end up having around that time, waiting for the thermostat to adjust, getting a frozen wet rag with peppermint oil to cool down or help with a headache, forgetting to get enough water, talking from overstimulation, etc.

It's taxing on my health. It's a frustrating cycle. I'm not sure what to do.

I see those terms used a lot on the internet, but people seem to, at least from my perspective, misuse or misapply them a lot of times.

Does drinking water from a plastic bottle have that much of an impact on human health and longevity?

I ask, because I'm suspicious that microplastics are THAT harmful. I mean they're so small. They even have micro in the name. And most people (at least in the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and western Europe I assume) are exposed to so little as far as I'm aware. The credit card amount of microplastics in our body is a misconception. From what I recall, it's FAR less than that, at least for most people in the countries I mentioned.

Plus, I'd suspect ingested plastic is FAR less toxic than ingested lead, mercury, arsenic, etc. I mean it's plastic, not paint chips, yet it's often treated in media as though people are eating paint chips or regularly adding a drop of bleach to a glass of water or as though men are going to get gynecomastia or less muscle mass from it. So many cleaning products, kitchen products, and personal care products receive similar treatment.

Whenever people refer to something as slavery, it often doesn't seem to match the definitions. Or they'll refer to something with a term like indentured servitude or forced labor, which, from what I can find, is similar to slavery but not the same as slavery.

Or is there a specific scholarly idea it references?

I don't trust most chemistry nerds, because most chemistry nerds nitpick, invalidate, ignore the negative effects of the postcautionary principle and the industrial revolution, ignore bad past actions of the chemical industry, ignore that people sometimes talk casually with feeling rather than accuracy (e.g. referring to a scent as "chemicaly"), don't seem to understand what a heuristic or rule of thumb is, are pseudoskeptics or possibly shills, are bad at helping others verbalize their thoughts, don't seem to understand what organic means in the context of agriculture, are bad at perspective taking (which shows up in communication), condescendingly act like and treat people as though they're ignorant, irrational, and stupid rather than distrustful for legitimate reasons, or are unfairly biased against alternative medicine or wellness.

The term seems a bit vague. It seems to have possibly originated from humanistic psychology, humanism, or the human potential movement, seems to have become part of self-help, self-improvement, or personal development (whatever those vague terms are exactly), and seems to have possibly changed in meaning, possibly being affected by narratology or narrative identity at some point or at times, by capitalism or individualism or neoliberalism at other times, and possibly by transhumanism, eugenics, social darwinism, human "enhancement", lamarckism, modernism, materialism, mechanism (in the philosophical sense), or obsession with "optimization" at times. There still doesn't seem to be a good definition, though.

I know it's popularized by the NRA. I think exploring it and its variations philosophically can be helpful, though, by providing the appropriate or correct cognitive strategy or way to think in contexts involving causality and people vs. objects, and it seems helpful to understand what schools of thought and philosophical principles are involved.

I mean can't going on a podcast or giving a speech be considered work? I'm not defending them just to clarify. I'm just trying to understand.