I don't really see what it has to do with fight club.
suppose car A and car B have autonomous driving that perform identically across a wide range of conditions. the manufacturer A enables FSD whenever the customer feels like it, but accepts no liability. manufacturer B accepts full liability for FSD use, but restricts it to situations where that's a good bet. car B is safer for the average customer, because it doesn't let them use FSD when it is especially risky. unless I understood a lot more about ML, CV, etc, I would pick car B every time.
kids is a cool film, but not much of a cautionary tale. it's more like a 90s urban euphoria, in that the message is really more to adults: "this is what teenagers are actually doing right now".
what (imo) would make requiem for a dream really effective is that it shows the transition from the "honeymoon phase" of drug use to the "consequences phase" really well. I think this is the part that teenagers really don't understand (or at least I didn't). when you're starting out, it can seem like a lot of the anti-drug messaging is just fear mongering (and it is, to an extent). but most people that age don't yet have the perspective to distinguish between harmless fun and a slow motion crisis.
trainspotting is also great, and a bit more realistic than requiem for a dream. but if I had to pick one of the two to show to teens, I'd probably pick the former.
I dunno what discussions you are referring to specifically, but the mainstream belief is that all-out nuclear war would end in nuclear winter. I have seen some posts/articles recently contesting that, which are (quietly) supported by the scientific community. we don't know for sure that nuclear winter wouldn't happen, but the foundations of the original theory have come into question under the last few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...
I don't really see a meaningful distinction between "end of the human race" and merely "end of civilization as we know it", but it's interesting to learn about the current debate among experts.
I think it's more dark humor / coping with death than a plan. if that were someone's serious plan, they would probably consider killing themselves if the bomb didn't do it for them.
first there's the philosophy itself and all the associated dogma and religious aspects. I found this pretty weird and not my cup of tea, but I have no problem with it existing and people adhering to it if it helps them.
then there's the community. thirteenth stepping aside, these are mostly people genuinely trying to help themselves and others. I noticed some odd things, like some AA meetings banning the mention of drug use (?) and the fact that people are often preaching total abstinence in between gulps of coffee and drags off a cigarette. but whatever, not a big deal. what was a big deal to me was the attitude some members take towards people who don't find success with the process. the big book is quite clear that it does not claim to have a solution for everyone, only one that worked for the writer. and yet I often heard some variation of "it works if you work it" if I voiced anything like this, the implication being that it would work for me too, if only I tried harder, surrendered more fully, etc. very toxic imo, not sure if all meetings are like this, but it was a persistent theme in the ones I went to.
but the biggest issue I have with AA is not the philosophy/organization/community, but its place in recovery in general. it's not just the default option; it's often the only one. you really have to dive deep to find any alternatives. even if you pay to see a psychiatrist or therapist, they will often just tell you to go to meetings, maybe prescribe some suboxone/naltrexone if you're lucky. rehabs (the ones that will take your insurance at least) are heavily based on the AA model. some of the lazier ones basically are just a series of AA meetings that you can't get away from. it sucks all the proverbial air out of the room. on top of all that, the relationship with ostensibly secular government (ie, court-ordered meeting attendance) is highly inappropriate.
this was a pretty negative comment, so I want to be clear that I do respect what you do. "free" and "works for some people, at least" is a pretty hard combo to beat when it comes to recovery. I don't want to pressure anyone to change something that helps them with such a serious problem. I do wish that, as a group, AA would just stay in its lane though. it should not have the relationship with government and medicine that it currently does.
this is the sort of conversation that must be conducted very delicately, but it is something I have also wondered, having had similar experiences myself.
quite a few times I have experienced unwanted sexual advances/touching/groping in public spaces from women I considered friends, in front of our other friends. I don't consider those events traumatic, but certainly uncomfortable at the time. I never knew what to do, so I would just freeze and pretend it wasn't happening. once I actually went through with it and had sex with the person because I felt I had led her on by allowing her initial advances (dumb of me in hindsight).
perhaps one important difference is that I was physically stronger than every one of those people. I could have resisted, but didn't due to (possibly imagined) social pressure. like I said, I don't think there is any lasting trauma over these events; I think of them more as misunderstandings than assaults. but at the same time, all of these women were otherwise quite vocal about feminism, consent, etc. I wonder what they would have called it if I'd done the same things to them.
I've only tried kratom a couple times, many years ago. I can see how someone like me could have a severe problem with it, but I didn't find it to be nearly as addictive (to me) as heroin. I knew someone, like you, who had withdrawal symptoms for a very long time after quitting. I've also known a couple of the mythical "chippers", who've used heroin/oxy/etc occasionally over the course of many years without becoming addicted.
humans can become addicted to pretty much anything that's enjoyable. some things are probably much more addictive than others, but you can't really create a strict ordering of addictive substances/activities when every individual responds differently. is kratom less addictive than heroin? I would guess yes. is it more addictive than alcohol? I don't know, probably yes for some, no for others.
that's exactly my point. maybe it wasn't worded well. "X is an opioid" does not imply "X is an extremely dangerous drug with high potential for addiction". not all opioids have psychoactive effects. some (eg, buprenorphine) do have psychoactive effects that are generally considered unpleasant by users. it's a large class of drugs...
opioids are a large class of drugs with widely varying effects and potential for abuse. for instance, the active ingredient in Imodium is an opioid, but you don't see a lot of recreational Imodium users.
kratom is certainly not a miracle herb, but its characteristics do make it a lot less addictive and lethal than its more popular relatives. it's not unreasonable to think it might be used in replacement therapy, similar to buprenorphine.
suppose car A and car B have autonomous driving that perform identically across a wide range of conditions. the manufacturer A enables FSD whenever the customer feels like it, but accepts no liability. manufacturer B accepts full liability for FSD use, but restricts it to situations where that's a good bet. car B is safer for the average customer, because it doesn't let them use FSD when it is especially risky. unless I understood a lot more about ML, CV, etc, I would pick car B every time.