Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

Identities inside the LGBTQIA+ have individual flags. The lesbian flag ans colors looks like this :

So if you pour a candle in these layers it becomes a lesbian candle.

Canadian here, we don't do that either. Primaries is one of the many additional structural barriers to representive voting being adopted in the US and a step away from having more than two parties in their system. It also increases the campaign costs for candidates and exacerbates the issues with first past the post voting meaning running people becomes an exclusive exercise for the wealthy or people with wealthy patrons who make handshake agreements.

As I understand it, Instead of having parties internally figure out who they are running on the docket as party head like sane people they open it up to basically a second first past the post election of internal candidates. You register as a member of those parties when you register to vote to participate (or not) in the election before the actual election. Personally to one outside that system that just seems like an additional bundle of problems to deal with by doubling down an already outdated voting system that creates further issues of populism but some Americans are very fond of archaic systems. You know something something founders of our nation blah blah can't change anything our fathers who art in 6ft of dirt didn't personally come up with blah.

Forgive my glibness. Being a neighbour is hard sometimes.

How often do you sit cross legged on the floor? A lot of stretching routines are basic maintenance but getting to actual comfort is a different thing entirely. Getting up regularly and relaxing into floor sitting while watching tv has done me wonders personally. The first while is rough though.

Don't get an SUV or Raised truck. They might be comfortable but they are dangerous to other vehicles on the road.

It might be more about what vehicles share the road. SUVs and pickups tend to cause the majority of fatalities in crashes because their bumper height basically being non compatible with cars and vans and their larger blindspots... That design might not play particularly well with the Keis in crash situations.

But that being said SUVs and raised pickups are menaces to road safety across the board and we should be looking at phasing them out.

I mean it could be using the percentages of another number. Like if there's 20 ingredients and you drop one it's a 5% reduction or if you added other non natural ingredients that would cause the percentage to drop... But whether it's less or fewer would depend on information we don't readily have because we don't know if it's ingredients by volume or of it's a reformulation of ingredients... and may be at the crux of this grammatical problem depending on what you assume is going on?

It depends on context. If you are dealing with a percentage of overall types of ingredients by volume without changing the variety of ingredients you would probably use "less". Like if you reduced the mix of milk related ingredients. You would use "fewer" to indicate that the number of individual ingredients had changed. Like if they got rid of two of the ingredients of an original ten.

This could be a category error?

Yup. They are lovable dum dums...

And by lovable I mean they will like exactly one person and wish death on everyone else. Just because you can have one as a pet and it will be your bestest friend doesn't mean it's a good idea. Owls do not understand vacations or sick days.

Just because they do not take shit from humans and are violent avian insurrectionists that absolutely will ruin your day doesn't mean they are unworthy of love.

While some of the posters are tackling the loss of constitutional rights through judicial limitations of those rights... Which is part of the design of those rights... I would like to highlight that you are correct in pointing out some unique flaws in the American system. Utilizing non-violent drug convictions to deny voting rights targets vulnerable populations and make your voting base generally comprised of wealthier individuals and exaggerates the power of racialized police targeting. Both the US and the UK have this... But not all democracies practice this. Many countries have zero restrictions based on felony conviction or imprisonment. The intersection of drug use, rights and the churches involvement in 12 step programs are also not living up to a lot of modern discussions of ethics or the separation of church and state implied in the design of the US.

Practice and design are two different things. Canada does not have a specific division of Church and state anywhere in the body of law. On paper its got an official religion. In practice however it is incredibly secular and most of the citizens believe whole heartedly that religion has no business in government which is backed by a constitutional freedom of religion. The use of 12 step programs is being challenged and dismantled as a breech of these rights. ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5391650 )

The 2A rights particularly are more difficult to engage with using international comparison because there are only four democratic countries that have a specific constitutional right to bear arms and two impose further restrictions and deference to law inside the body of right itself. The only countries with so broad a written constitutional right to bear arms is the US and Guatemala. Other countries that guarantee those rights do so inside their body of regular law which means that right is not elevated. It can be more easily ammended and changed by sitting bodies and it interacts with criminal law and licencing programs more fluidly.

This structural difference is important. It is supposed to provide additional protections. However the cultural nature of guns is under public challenge. The US isn't nessisarily playing by it's intended design because in part from a written standpoint the 2A is a mess. The issue with old democracies is that they were kind of in Beta and the wording of those laws do not match the modern standardized code that comprises the body of active civil and criminal law and that leaves more than normal room for personal interpretation. The cultural nature to hold the constitution as a holy document that cannot be updated for function sake for mostly sentimental reasons means that you basically don't get the last word on these things or a solid grasp of whether something is constitutional until a Supreme Court majority interprets the archaic document in basically whichever way they please. There are logistical issues with treating law like a precious artwork instead of a practical tool.

Then, provided this is not simply a theoretical, I wish you whatever outcome is the best for everyone in the situation you are in. May you and your partner find the most happiness whatever that outcome looks like.

And that's fine. I do what I do because I have a mentality of non-fungibility. There aren't simply more fish in the sea, this is my person. There's not another one out there for me.

There isn't anything ethically wrong with someone with a more flexible approach to romance or someone who has a hard boundry. Not everyone is down for a sacrifice at that level for another person - and that is okay, not everyone is deserving of being the recipient of that kind of sacrifice just as everyone isn't nessisarily capable of making that kind of sacrifice. If you are only kind of happy with your relationship then that's not enough it has to be deep. It isn't nessisarily easy, it doesn't get easier and it might require daily conviction. It is a vulnerable space too. If you don't have absolute trust it's not going to work and absolute trust comes with intense emotional risk.

But on the other hand of things if your partner is dead set on doing this, you love them in a holistic way, you're in a stable environment and you are at any level unsure of your ability to be attracted to them... you could probably afford to try. You might actually surprise yourself with be how you are okay then you thought you would be - and you can set the expectation at the beginning of the process that you are unsure of yourself and don't know if it's something you can do so they know and weigh the risks as part of their transition. Not all transitions are 100%. Trans people are often very calculated about what they choose to pursue based on what they personally value out of life in a more general sense. Not everyone goes for every option and the reasons behind them are intensely personal value judgements that involve way more than just the dysphoria/euphoria hits. I think way too many people peace out of things in general before they try or fully understand something and miss out because they built molehills into mountains. The process of transition isn't lightning fast. You have time to think, to adjust, to compromise and if it really isn't working for you then you will be absolutely sure that it's not for you.

It all depends on your personal estimation of the value of the relationship you have going and how open you are to the process of self exploration to test your hypothesis about yourself against an actual real life situation. Because none of us know ourselves half so well as we think we do.

As a trans masculine non-binary person it's more of personal conversation. My partner isn't into masculine body types so my transition ended up being purely social because my partner does more on a daily basis to contribute to my happiness then the comfort of being in a body that doesn't make me feel like shit daily. It's a bit like having a pet allergy but deciding that you can live with feeling like someone poured sand into your sinuses every day rather than giving up your furry best friend. For all purposes though our relationship is coded and treated as though I am my specified gender. We are effectively culturally a same sex couple. Neither of us use female terms for my junk and he doesn't claim to be straight. We do joke he is "queer by association" however.

But what I am doing counts as a full transition.

In regards to the what you give up situation it's all rather dependant on how adverse you are and whether someone in your relationship is able to give a little and how much you value and ultimately how non-fungible the relationship is to you... Because - just putting it out there - strap-ons do exist.

Yes it does suck on your end but on the other side of the phone your perspective date is probably having a whole mental breakdown about it. For a lot of trans folk disclosure is absolutely nessisary as early as possible and preferably for safety reasons not when you are face to face...

Buuuut they also are very likely to get really vile transphobic backlash from a perspective date as much as they are honest rejections based on genital preference which sucks to be rejected for but is nobody's fault. There's a lot of trans people out there who feel like they are never going to be given a chance. Either way steeling themselves for one form of rejection or a vile reminder of the awful people out there who think you are subhuman and are offered up a nice juicy target on which to let loose their bigotry does tend to make for disordered social niceties. Once someone has been burned enough they get pretty damn shy and the procrastination is more of a case of battling personal traumas until the last possible second where one absolutely must do the right thing.

I would advise not taking it too personally.

Yeah... If anyone starts talking too much about the shape of the human skull as if that means anything whatever they are selling ain't worth the pitch

Pretty sure she's just bin-ornery on account of getting space dumpstered for a millenia.

Yay for the social sanctity minding one's own beeswax!

Are you kidding? It's a comedian's job to read the room and tell when their set isn't landing for shit and change tactics on the fly. Maybe he's got his own shit niche but he should learn the basics of tact if he wants gigs.

It's not the audience's fault when a comedian bombs. It's his own damn fool self.

Truth, Saskatchewan tends to echo a lot of the transphobic legislation of the States. They passed a law requiring parents to give consent to use requested pronouns in schools. The place isn't what one would call "trans issue forward". I could totally see some ass backwards planning committee thinking it would be great before belatedly remembering the sort of people who attend these sorts of charity events actually tend to be fairly empathetic to their fellow humans...

Branding. Democrats, for all their ills, do care about playing by the rules and optics of potential unfair conduct. Republicans generally know their base will believe anything they feed them but Democrats know people at home who make up their support are following along with the rule book. If they ditch their brand as the moral high ground between the two choices their goose is cooked.

As a Socialist that subscribes more to the historical strain of Saint Simone and Robert Owen that broke out and away early from Marxism to become the Chartist movement and the history of American non-Marxist socialism ... I am often tired of how one note Tankies are. They seem obsessed with a sort of internal purity which denies a rich history of socialism other than Marx and Engles. Once one of them goes off about Stalinism or Maoism I basically just disengage because at that point they are basically so enamored with the aesthetics of communism that they aren't going to be listening to anything. They want to be devout to the ideology while whitewashing the bloodstains of past failures. I understand a collectivist mindset is more or less what Marx aims to cultivate in his work but it seems often at the cost of tolerance of any level of apostasy.

The flattening of a mass of political thought into cardboard cuttouts to snipe at and sneering at the range of Socialism hybrids with No True Scotsman flavour condescension as political ideologies simply not complete worldviews in their own right has got me rather depressed in dealing with the average Communist on here. People in general often just seem to want to find something simple and easy to hate.