^ 100%

:)


I agree

Every kind of addiction has similarities and differences. Crackheads and junkies are both addicted to something but the problems their addictions cause are different, their reasons they typically became addicted are different, and the process of withdrawal and post acute withdrawal will be different, and readjusting to society will be different.

If people just want to go to Addicts Anonymous for any addiction that’s fine but groups specialize around particular problems for a reason. It’s not about who’s better or worse. It’s just not necessarily the same problem.

They're actually not specialized though. AA started when drugs were more of an underground subculture and alcoholism was the major problem iirc. And NA is clearly an umbrella group. But both groups have addicts from a variety of substances for the simple reason that the similarities are more substantial than the differences.

I'm not even evangelizing either of those groups - I participate in neither one though my dad did. But the idea that weed isn't significant enough a drug to use those groups, if that's the approach that appeals to you, seems more like an enabling lie you could tell yourself to avoid dealing with the problem than anything else to me. Cause I've known plenty of people who just rinsed all their money on weed while letting their life go to **** which to me is a pretty good reason to try to get help.

A friend of mine offered to give me a free tattoo at the shop they work at, and I've been pretty hesitant because I'm pretty picky about tattoos. I was on the fence for a bit, and today they told me the owner was listening to Alex Jones at the shop the other day and I finally gave a straight "Hell no, **** that". If you listen to Info Wars, and not for comedy, I don't want to have anything to do with you.

Give 'em a break. They're probably just concerned about the gay frogs.

https://i.redd.it/g3u1j0gmflf11.jpg

What does any of that have to do with their artistic ability? Are they gonna draw a gay frog on you?

^ was wondering the same thing

I get not wanting to support them by giving them money, but if it's free who cares as long as it looks good? Doesn't do or change anything, he's not going to stop listening to Info Wars because you turned down a free tattoo because he'll be in the same building as you. It's just virtue signaling to turn down a friendly offer for free art because... what is it exactly? You don't like that he once played Alex Jones out loud in the shop as far as you are aware? Lame.

Agreed. But I don't think it's technically virtue signalling to turn down the offer because they listen to InfoWars (unless he goes and tells them that that's why he's turning down the offer). But it definitely is virtue signalling to turn it down for that reason and then tell us about it.

But maybe he wants to vote with his money. Maybe, rather than get a free tat from an InfoWars fan, he wants to pay money to a tat parlor that plays the Young Turks or something. That doesn't make much sense to me, but if you take politics that seriously, more power to ya.

But it's not even the artist who was listening. It was the artist's boss. Like what could possibly be accomplished?