You’re signed in on lemmy.ca no? The stuff I see ain’t so bad. A lot of the bad instances have been defederated. I also disabled NSFW content from appearing. And I block communities I don’t want to see.
Press back while on the front page and you can pick the communities, you can choose All from there and then short by top 6 hours or something like that
Sometimes the “offense” that guys feel over guys wearing skirts and stuff is definitely from closeted thoughts or outright self-hate, but that’s not necessarily the case. The underlying issue is they view clothing as gendered in the first place.
Style shouldn’t be associated with sexual attraction implicitly, but it does for stupid people, and many people are stupid. Especially horny guys thinking with the wrong head.
The mere presence of a particular article turns them on, and they project that to intent. It is entirely subjective if they get upset at popping a boner, or upset that a male would use clothing that traditionally makes a female sexy. It requires the dumb person to view another’s clothing choice as a direct expression to them, but stupid people taking things personally that aren’t personal should be preeeetty easy to understand!
It’s a lesser mindset, male-focused version of, “what was she wearing?” after an SA event. Just because I’m trying to look pretty and you like some part of that, I am still most definitely not coming on to you by wearing it.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It is very interesting how different I (male-presenting) get treated when I wear a skirt vs trousers. The whole rest of my outfit and appearance is similar - I have the same haircut, glasses, coat, boots, backpack. But when I wear a skirt, I know that people notice me far more, and I also for some reason start getting compliments from women.
So I dont think that’s something which only happens with men noticing women, but that skirts (especially yhe ones which are shorter and more fitting) society at large seems to associate with sexual attraction. I will be honest, it is a bit of fun to know I have so much power over peoples attention - that I can control the amount of attention on me by wearing pants vs a skirt. But I also fully agree with what you’re saying - people can wear skirts just because they like them, not because they want to be sexy to you (shocker moment).
I know that we subconciously do it all the time, but: how do you deal with the fact that people treat you differently just based on what you’re wearing?
At least to more directly answer your question: I absolutely despise gendered style. You’d imagine access to the loins would be universal, but noooo, of course the more common target of desire gets the short end of the stick…
Humans are still disgustingly simple beings. That’s genuinely how I feel about your question.
Just commented a couple of times on my kilts being a visible turn off to the women I’ve dated. I’m a small man, not afraid of girl clothes, but that wasn’t hitting with 'em.
Before you go banging on people for “lesser mindsets” and such, consider this; Attraction is not a choice.
Let me day that again for those in the back; Attraction is not a choice.
I think we might be agreeing, but let’s not put people down for their attractions.
We definitely shouldn’t be putting down people for their attractions, but I think there is value in highlighting that a person’s concept of attractiveness can be socially constructed and therefore can also be deconstructed.
I think instead of labelling people with narrow or socio-centric concepts of attraction as “lesser” or stupid or uninformed isn’t fair, but I also think it’s fair to say that they likely haven’t gone through the process of deconstructing why they feel the way they do.
Except for the interesting intellectual exercise, why deconstruct it? Again, attraction is not a choice. If a man in a kilt turns a woman off? So be it. It’s not like emotions can be fought with logic.
All worth discussing and thinking about, but in the end deconstruction of attraction won’t win anyone over.
Because it’s valuable to deconstruct any concept that is held without a clear reason. It’s far more important to know why you believe or feel what you do than just knowing what you feel or believe.
I’m not expecting to convince people of my position, nor to have others change their positions based upon said deconstruction, but it’s worth raising nonetheless.
If attraction can be socially programmed (as it so very obviously is), then it can similarly be deconstructed. The first step to achieving that is questioning the motivation for attraction beyond “that’s hot”.
It constantly astounds me that people somehow do not understand the concept of introspection.
The “why” is more important than the “what”. Always. Killing a man is cold blooded murder in one context, and saving your entire family in another. Thoughts are the same. If you don’t know why you are correct, you are far less likely to be correct on a less obvious question.
I swear, these are the people that hear a Trolley Problem and only start asking questions to see if they can get you to agree with killing more than the other track…
Attraction is not a choice, but if your reaction to cognitive dissonance is to get angry at someone wearing clothing, that is a YOU problem.
Yes, lots of people have problems with this. That does not make it acceptable. Again, attraction is not a choice, but you do not have to hump their leg.
I hear those excuses all the time from rapists. “I was attracted!”, “look what she was wearing!” Know what you defend when you say people cannot control their attraction: That’s EXACTLY what a lot of rapists say.
People SHOULD be able to control their attraction, at least enough to be a civil person. Being a rude piece of shit over clothing is very much ALSO not being a civil person. Things don’t have to get violent for them to still be wrong.
Oh definitely. While it’s not a given that bigoted folks are closeted, it’s worth noting that there’s been some studies showing it’s not just a joke: scientificamerican.com/…/homophobes-might-be-hidd…
Your take on it seems likely in other cases, and/or some combo of both.
That said, I would much rather a man with an erection look at me like on the right than like on the left, which was a bit more where my joke was coming from.
Something to keep in mind is that just because a community hasn’t been active recently doesn’t mean it’s completely dead. As long as it has subscribers, new posts will show up on their front pages and get votes and comments, even if it’s been weeks since the last post.
150M isn’t even close to covering a functioning public transit system in any major US city. Expansions of the subway in New York routinely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that’s just expansions. Even if you’re looking at buses only, if you start with the assumption that each bus runs about $100k, that’s a mere 1500 buses. The CTA in Chicago uses over 1800 buses–that only counts the ones currently in operation–so you’re still short on building bus stops, bus lanes, any kind of light rail system, and so on. Oh, and lots of the bus lines in Chicago stop running after a certain time; I couldn’t take the buses to go to any concerts, since nothing operated in my area between midnight and 5am.
Plus, you have ongoing operating expenses. Once a stadium is built, it’s usually operated by someone other than the city.
I’m not saying I’m in favor of stadiums, but whoever costed this needs to consult with a civil engineer to come up with a more realistic figure for comprehensive public transit for major cities.
Thank you for your more informed numbers! I had no idea that a basic city bus was half a million dollars; that seems outrageous, but it also seems outrageous that an F-150 can easily cost $80k.
It’s a pity that it’s so damn expensive to run light rail in established cities; it seems to make a lot more sense in the long run, but those numbers are really hard to swallow in the short run.
Mmmm political left and right don’t align strictly on a union-supporting axis. Even left and right don’t really mean much anymore, because the Conservative party isn’t anchored to a specific set of ideologies the was Progressives are. A conservative will support a union when the union helps rhe conservative, will oppose the union when the union hurts the conservative, and will demonize the union when it helps them get elected by lathering up their base of voters.
Progressives support labor rights, equitable pay, and regulations that protect the safety and liberty of the worker. Progressives will support those ideals even when it does not help them directly.
Many people associate Communists and Socialists with the “left” and Libertarians and Free Market Capitalists with the “right”. But there are conservative communists and progressive capitalists.
Whaa? “Many people associate Communists and Socialists with the “left” and Libertarians and Free Market Capitalists with the “right”. But there are conservative communists and progressive capitalists.” You can’t be a conservative Communist, its oxymoronic, dito for the other one too. If you call yourself a communist and have conservative ideals u are not a communist and should change your believes or be removed for communist spaces. On the other hand if you call yourself progressive and support capitalism you aren’t progressive as capitalism is inherently oppressive. You can call yourself whatever you’d like but you have to walk the walk too, to be it.
China is not communist, just like the Nazi party was not socialist. And yeah you can yourself whatever you’d like but that doesn’t make it true. I can call myself a invertebrate but my bones are still on the inside
China is socially conservative–and deeply authoritarian–but economically is officially communist (although not so much in practice, given that they have billionaires).
Socialism is left/liberal as a concept (and so is capitalism, in actual fact)… It’s not left/liberal when implemented at scale…
The arbiter of resources, whatever or whoever that may be, invariably becomes right/authoritarian. The simple nature of the arbitration causes it, and a truly left/liberal society would, by necessity, require a lack of said arbitration.
Such a society cannot exist at scale. History has proven that repeatedly. A left/liberal society could arguably only exist as anarchy, and frankly, capitalism is far closer to that than communism is. The “every man for himself” nature of capitalism is inherently more capable of providing individual liberty and equal opportunity than the “to each according to his needs”, very simply because of the inherent requirement of having an entity judge that need… Said judging entity is inherently authoritarian in nature…
I know it’s just memes, but, if anyone is interested in more perspective on this, I heartily recommend the book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. It tells the history of the latter parts of the Indian Wars using primary sources (and Native American sources, wherever possible). The result is the story of American expansion from the Native perspective and, while depressing, is also really important to understand.
I can’t imagine anything higher than high school enforcing hand written papers over typed. Even when I was in high school, back before smartphones and when most people didn’t have a computer, most of my teachers required things to be typed up.
fr fr i feel like such a horrible loser whenever i throw out groceries, esp produce. how do people plan their lives out perfectly such that it seems like this never happens to a proper adult
I end up structuring my diet based on what spoils first, so I check what I have available and generally eat what is most likely to spoil first. It gets tricky when I buy too many groceries all at once.
I make a meal plan for every week and only buy ingredients I need for those meals. Saves me money by having me buy only the things I definitely need, and time by having to make only a single trip to the grocery store each week.
I know this sounds super obvious but in the past year I’ve finally realized I can freeze things. I mean I used to freeze things too but not nearly as liberally as I do now. Now whenever I have too much of anything my first question is does it freeze well? It turns out a lot of things freeze well. Most recently I’ve been freezing jalapeños because I dont use them often enough when I buy them.
Just pick 7-10 daily meals you intend to make on your own and buy only what it takes to make those things. I never throw food out, but only because I only buy what I know my family will eat. Then every 1-1 5 weeks I buy that again.
I cheat. I only buy stuff the minute before I actually want or need it, but this only works when you live a 30 second walk from a grocery store.
At that point, why bring stuff into my fridge for me to plan around, when I can treat the grocer like it’s my fridge? Time to cook? Takes me 10 minutes to come back with exactly what I need, and then I instantly use it. Doesn’t even go into the fridge.
Also, potatoes last longer than you might think. They are still fine to eat for several days after they sprout. Just break the sprouts off and prepare them like normal. Because of this they are one of the few things I keep in my fridge all the time.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.