Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E

exasperation

@ exasperation @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
3
Comments
454
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Removed

    you are

    Jump

  • These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men.

    Yes, and I'm saying there are prominent feminist voices advocating for specific approaches and helping boys navigate the world, with only incidental benefits to women (who avoid being abused by those men). They're publishing books, running workshops, providing online resources for these specific things.

    Feminist organizations dedicated to protecting women's reproductive rights are also distributing condoms that go on penises, even for men fucking other men.

    Maybe they are motivated by the "knock on" effects on women, but it's very clear that feminist organizations and advocates are doing things to address problems that only affect men and boys.

    I am posing the hypothetical question

    I'm talking about actual things we're doing, not just hypotheticals.

    I'm mainly arguing against a narrow view where addressing problems is thought in terms of the demographic identity of the recipient of that help. Organizations try to tackle problems, and trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.

  • New Years Eve

    Jump

  • I'm slowly coming around to the theory that people on Lemmy are less happy than much of the rest of the internet because a disproportionate number have been aggrieved by mod actions on reddit subreddits. Many of them probably have a point, but I wonder how many of them were actually banned for being wet blankets nobody wanted around anymore.

  • Removed

    grindset

    Jump

  • I would argue it's not really even a solid overlap with Christianity. Puritan ideals are a small subset of the overall Christian world, and might not even be the most relevant religiously centered ideals affecting our society today (prosperity gospel folks might be more politically relevant in America these days, and they are basically saying the opposite, that their religion offers promises of riches now in this life, and Catholics don't seem as likely as Protestants to see toil as virtue).

    Perhaps more importantly, there is a strong overlap with some cultural forces in distinctly non-Christian societies, like in India and China and Singapore and stuff, where people actively preach a philosophy where people must suffer in order to develop their characters and earn happiness/prosperity. I have had colleagues from Singapore (both Chinese and Indian heritage) who talked about this kind of stuff a lot, and it's consistent with some of the LinkedIn nonsense that I see and make fun of on a regular basis. I think the concept and the origins of these ideas are pretty far removed from Christianity.

  • Removed

    you are

    Jump

  • Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men

    Yes.

    One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.

    In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don't fit the stereotypes of those spaces.

    For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.

    I'm fully, unabashedly feminist. I'm also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don't fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.

    There's no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.

  • Eating

    Jump

  • I'm not mad about dicks. I'm mad about misuse of statisdicks.

  • How do you successfully maintain a calorie deficit over the long run?

    Jump

  • As an example, I salt my salads fairly precisely. After all, the word "salad" itself derives from the Latin word for "salted."

    But there's also like literally no way that overeating a salad would be unhealthy for me, a person who doesn't have hypertension (and who sweats a lot of salt so that I need a higher than normal sodium intake). I'm going to salt my salads as I see fit, and use the right amount of acid and maybe a source of umami for flavor, as well. I want my salads to be delicious, because I have basically zero fear that I'll overeat them to the point of adverse health effects.

    For plenty of other foods, I'm basically controlling portions before I plate anyway. If I'm at a restaurant, the portions are tightly controlled and I control what portions I eat by simply controlling what portions I order. If I'm cooking at home, I'm not accidentally meal planning for the week but running out of food on Wednesday. Everything I eat should be delicious, and if there's a problem with overeating, it's because I failed to control portions before it was placed in front of me.

    To borrow an analogy from Homer's The Odyssey, I prefer Odysseus's strategy of tying himself to the mast and hearing the sirens anyway, over the crew plugging their ears and never hearing them in the first place.

    Everyone can take their own approaches, but my own strategies for portioning already make it so that making the food less delicious wouldn't do much for myself.

  • How do you successfully maintain a calorie deficit over the long run?

    Jump

  • Sodium makes food more palatable. You will find yourself eating less calories simply because the food isn’t as good.

    Eh, I don't love this one. The idea of intentionally making food shittier so that you enjoy it less is never gonna work for me.

  • How do you successfully maintain a calorie deficit over the long run?

    Jump

  • In my late 20's, I managed to cut to probably the lowest body fat percentage of my life.

    I learned which foods I found to be satisfying despite a lower calorie count, and vice versa. In my case, it's water, fiber, and protein that are important for feeling full even when I'm not eating a lot of calories. That means lots of soups, lots of green vegetables, lots of lean meats and cheeses, and some member of the legume family in almost every meal (beans and lentils, and also things like green beans, peas, peanuts). It also meant a dramatic reduction in sugars, especially in beverages, and a big reduction in alcohol consumption.

    I started running a lot. Some people say you can't outrun a bad diet, but running 25 miles (40km) per week goes a really, really long way and buys you a big buffer that allows you a few high calorie meals here and there.

    I stopped keeping snacks on hand. Almost everything in my house required some degree of prep or cooking to eat.

    Many of those I've kept up in the 20 years since, but I've re-added whole grains and fruit into my previously low carb diet because they have a good satiety to calorie ratio (probably because of the fiber). And I've stopped running but also tolerate a higher body fat percentage and higher overall weight in support of a significantly more muscular build (and a lot more measurable strength). Finally, I do keep certain ready to eat foods in the house, but mainly because I have kids and need to feed them without spending all my time on that task.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower, son. The Democratic vote for me is right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • asking to have the banana

    Yeah that's just a quirk of the English language in that "ask" means both inquiring, trying to learn information from a response, and request, a communication to another that the "asker" wants something.

  • What are your thoughts on "Don't Chase, Attract."?

    Jump

  • No, that's the opposite of what people should be doing. Asking someone on a date before having a conversation with them is creepy and weird. But simply having a conversation isn't much of a commitment, and gives the opportunities for both sides to learn about whether they should want to be interested, and then, if so, send the signals of interest if the other person.

    Expressing attraction to someone who hasn't sent you signals is often unattractive in itself. So initiate some kind of interaction without sending a signal of attraction, because you should legitimately want to know more before being attracted.

  • What are your thoughts on "Don't Chase, Attract."?

    Jump

  • If you're not getting signals from them then you leave it at that.

    But not getting signals is the default from people who don't know you. How are you expecting to cross into a place where you are getting signals if you always stop before actually interacting with someone?

    If you can't flirt with people you're basically closing yourself off to 80% of the world who might give you a chance after a single conversation.

    Go interact with people. Some of those people will give you signals to back off. Some will not give signals at all. Some will give signals to continue. If the "no signals" means stop to you, you're gonna have a rough time even making friends.

  • What are your thoughts on "Don't Chase, Attract."?

    Jump

  • if you're not getting signals from her it will only serve to embarrass you.

    How the fuck are you not getting signals from someone and still hoping to "attract" them? If you're unable to make a connection enough to where you're seen by a specific person as attractive, then you haven't done enough to be noticed by that person. You still have to put in the work to be noticed. And many people would describe that simple act as "shooting your shot."

  • Have you ever tried to "acquire" a taste? (Ie. spent time eating/imbibing something you didn't like at first to start to enjoy it.)

    Jump

  • Dude, just drink whiskey. A 1.5 oz spirit at 90 proof (45% ABV) is roughly the same amount of alcohol as a 12 oz can of 5.6% beer.

    A 750 ml bottle of whiskey is about 16, maybe 17 1.5 oz glasses. So basically any liquor/spirit that's cheaper than $17 for a 90 proof bottle, or like $15 for an 80 proof bottle, is a better alcohol per dollar value than Bud Ice at $1/can.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Plastic injection molding doesn't require a lot of hands, but it does require a relatively skilled supervision of the process and the assembly line.

    As a result, plastic toys aren't a good candidate for child labor. It's just not cost effective compared to automated systems.

    Stuffed toys, though, may benefit from tiny fingers doing fine stitching, so maybe that would've been a better candidate for comics like this.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Any machine can be a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough.

  • Sea Level

    Jump

  • I'm pointing out the fallacious reasoning behind your view that with enough chances, it is inevitable that every possible outcome occurs at least once. That does not necessarily follow, simply because it is possible to generate events of infinitesimal probability, simply because n! grows much faster than x^n. That's just plain math.

    Turning to whether the rare earth hypothesis itself is correct or not, I don't actually have a strong view on this. I just know that you can't reason your way into disproving the rare earth hypothesis simply by saying "the earth is possible and therefore common, because everything that is possible is inevitably common."

    I don't see how else this could be anything but probabilistic. Unless you're saying every star is the same size as the sun and every star has an earth-like planet orbiting it in he habitable zone, the probability of those things is obviously less than 100%. We can already observe counterexamples that proves those aren't 100%.

    So if you want to argue that there's no way the probability is less than 1 in 1021, fine. Then we're having the conversation about the actual probabilities. But my whole point, since my first comment in this thread, is that it is not enough to say "I think there are 1021 planets so life is inevitable." That's not sufficient to support that conclusion.

    Debate whether a large moon, plate tectonics, a magnetic field, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, a Jupiter-like neighbor, a G-type star, and what ratios of specific elements need to be present on a planet to qualify. I'll leave the actual estimates of those probabilities to others. But each of these factors has a non-100% chance of happening on any given planet, and it becomes a question of whether the probabilities stack in a way that overcomes the sheer number of stars and planets there are. And that's the thing I'm sure about, that you simply can't ignore the factorial expansion of those factors because you think that there are enough planets in the universe to make that irrelevant.

  • It’s an acquired taste.

    Jump

  • "Colony collapses are a good thing" does not pass the smell test in any capacity and I would disregard that opinion without some significant evidence to back it up.

    Yeah, it seems like a pretty naive zero-sum outlook on competition between native pollinators and European honeybee colonies maintained by beekeepers.

    Colony collapse disorder of honeybee colonies, if caused by land use and pesticides and pollution and things like that, can be an indicator of the native pollinator population also hurting from the same causes, rather than some kind of opportunity for native species to get the upper hand in the competition.

  • Sea Level

    Jump

  • So a planet isn't just 50% likely to form with rocky bias withín the frost line, it is certain to do so.

    No, you're skipping a step. For any n number of chances, the likelihood of something with probability p happening at least once is 1 - (1 - p)^n . You may think that with high enough n that it doesn't matter what p is, because the exponential increase from n overwhelms the math to where the whole term basically converges onto 1, but my point is that there are combinatorics where the exponential increase in n is still dwarfed by the effect of the factorial increase in 1/p.

    The probability of a rocky planet to form within a habitable zone is about 20% for any given star, according to your earlier link. How many will have a moon like ours? How many other life-sustaining characteristics will it have? If your argument is that the probability is 100% for every star, well, that's just wrong. If your argument is that it is inevitable in that the probability approaches 100% if you look at enough stars, then you're ignoring the entire point I've been making here, that you would have to show that the probability p is large enough that one would expect the overall probability to be found in at least some of the n stars viewed.

    The fact that something has happened nearly every time we see a chance of it happening very much does make it a high probability event, cf. Bayesian inference.

    No, my deck of cards counterexample directly disproves this conjecture of yours. And you can't talk about Bayes theorem while simultaneously saying that this isn't a discussion about probability.

    And you also can't talk about natural laws without probability, either, as quantum mechanics itself is probability distributions.

    So I'll continue to point out that the vastness of space might mean that the n is in the order of 1021, but I can simultaneously recognize that 1021 is a mind bogglingly large number while still not being large enough.