Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean... It's grocery store tea. Same thing as grocery store coffee. It's in the mediocre range. To convert a non-tea person you need more than just giving them "okay". If you give someone who doesn't know tea a mediocre tea and tell them it's "good tea" you basically just increase the evidence that tea isn't all that and they don't see much benefit in seeking it out the same way they would if you go out of your way to blow their mind.

The reason Yorkshire Gold doesn't trip your sensitivity is because they roast it longer. It kind of destroys the individual character and flavor profile of the different tea varieties but it means that it becomes nigh impossible to oversteep.

How on earth did you interpret I was suggesting you place that kind of burden on a beginner - are you mental?

No! You, the converter make tea for the convertee so all they need to do is put fabulous tea in their face and benefit from your experience.... Or just go to a good restaurant and have actually great tea. Point being is if you want someone to potentially like tea the burden of proof that tea is awesome is on you to prove.

Some might be swayed by giving them stale preportioned box tea that is formulated not to be awesome - just harder than average to fuck up with a long steep time because it's overroasted... But good luck.

I have converted non-coffee /tea people and it's not like they've never had tea before. Some people legit don't like it but more or have been trained to ambivalence because people have given them a lot of mediocre tea and sold them the idea that the mediocre was good. For those people it takes way more than another banal so/so experience solidifing their notion that tea kind of is just "okay" to actually get them curious.

Yeah, but if you are trying to actually impress someone it's not where you start. I buy Yorkshire when I am hard up for cash because I am already addicted to black tea and it's ridiculously cheap but in the realm of tea in general it's equivalent to the same supermarket coffees.

If you actually want to hook someone you give them the good stuff first to show them the experience to aspire. If it's coffee go to a roaster, buy whole bean, grind it yourself before brew and use good technique in prep or go to a shop that knows their shit to do it all for you. If it's tea go and spring for a loose leaf properly sealed, pay attention to steep time and ideal water temp. You want to see their eyes shine when they take their first sip with the realization of a new word opening up.

Give it like a few years and they'll drink Yorkshire of their own volition. If you didn't grow up with tea as a nostalgia you got to traverse a barrier and create a memory they want to relive in another way.

I am sorry... They gave you Yorkshire tea and expected you to be impressed? Please tell me you are joking.

In Canadian equivalent it's like trying to take a foreigner to Tim Hortons. Just because it's the historical cheap swill choice of the masses one participates in out of habit doesn't mean it is objectively good.

Well... A lot of their biblical evidence is less a rewrite and more of a translation issue. Take the whole Sodom and Gehmorra story about tje two angels that everyone is so keen to turn into a condemnation of the gays.

In the OG text the words used to describe the angels were analog to genderless forms of the word "master" and because there were two of them they were always referred to by genderless they/them plural... Which is probably why there were two of them. We are probably supposed to imply the perceived gender of the angels was irrelevant to the tale.

The first Latin and English translations off of Hebrew however used gendered terms for the two angels that coded them as male. Stuff like "Masters" "Lords" that kind of thing in large part because those societies were respectively fairly misogynistic and not primed to interpret either of the two genderless entities as possibility female coded. Then you see the anti same sex interpretation gain popularity in the case of England and France at the time they were going through a population crash via plague which caused amoung other things criminalization of same sex unions as a threat to sexual replacement of a sharply diminished population. So really we can trace this story being interpreted as God's condemnation of the gays rather then just regular old rapists around the same time the word "sodomy" came into the lexicon in the 1300's and the first waves of plague.

I really want to watch Harris take this chicken apart bone by bone in debate like a mechanical separator. The world demands this man be turned into Trump McNuggets on live tv.

"Being Hot" is never someone's entire personality. Most of the time it's just the veneer used to keep people at a distance. There are advantages to not being hot - mainly you are not hassled by people for attention. Getting approached by people who want something from you all the time tends to make one put up walls. It's easier to be kind when so little is generally expected of you because it's not being demanded regularly.

Not everyone has the strength to be as nice and polite to the 50th person trying to score their number that week as they are to the first. We as a society spend way too much time dehumanizing people because of this shit. I am not conventionally attractive and I bless my lucky stars that I grew up never being denied affection by family or friends because I wasn't good looking. I see people at my job talk about the pretty actor folk behind their backs and it sounds just as catty and insecure as the shit people said about me for being unattractive.

I fucking hate thos saying. The moralizing of vanity is just another way to feel superior. The people who put a lot of work into how they look do so for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes it's because they are just having fun but other times it's because they grow up being told that they are never enough. That they are simply being deficient for not trying hard enough in which case their lack of vanity becomes instead the moral failure of gluttony or sloth. There is no win state. So then you are simply reinforcing that who they are aside from their appearance is worthless because they are empty voids for caring about the one thing that might be a rare source of validation. We all experience the effects of the privilege of attractiveness or it's lack. A lot of us spend lifetimes unpacking the toxic effects of that programming. This isn't the way to go about stopping that cycle.

"Vanity makes a person ugly inside" is just another way to put someone down so the person wielding this cliche can feel big. It's moralizing someone's relationship to their physicality and preying on places where people are trained to be weak.

Do they just figure the brainwashing has stuck by now? Is that it?

Like if they draw a connection between whatever weird thing they can possibly shoestring to trans women all of the conditioning will kick in and they will go "Brrr Trans woman BAD, me no trans! Me hate bad thing that will make me trans! "

It's funny being neurodivergant and dealing with neurotypicals who really don't get it and then finding someone who is your exact brand of neurospicy and then watching them sit back in confusion as all of a sudden they are the odd one out.

"How about we verbalize our intentions?" "Pppft! You're the only one here who needs verbal cues. Try reading body language and not just assuming anything SUSAN."

I propose a new social convention where anyone who starts talking about people of any kind in terms of being breeding stock is declared free game to be immediately socked in the gonads by any and all listeners present.

Under this subheading are topics Up to and including :

• Racist narratives about racial replacement or "breeding groups out of existence"
• Facist and Misogynistic theory about the redistribution of resources ie : women
• Transphobic conspiracies about how they are really trying to sterilize swacks of the population through hysterectomies
• Homophobic narratives about how same sex relationships are not "fruitful" and thus worthless
• Idiot relatives who are so desperate to get you to mash your genitals with someone else's so they can babysit as a hobby that they will drive you to murder if not stopped.

Not unity specifically. Excellence, Respect and Friendship without discrimination. Technically "unity" is not a core mission statement and what is considered culturally significant is left to the host country to decide.

Is a fashion show featuring people dressed to reference Greek Gods off brand for the French?Not really. Historically speaking the Nobility used to employ people to dress up to become Greek gods in tableau to serve as living lawn ornements.

The original Olympics, both the ancient practice and the og international competition used to also feature arts and culture. Since the painting they were referencing was not the Last Supper and about Greek Gods it wasn't an intended act of disrespect or division ... But other forces are definitely choosing to make it so based on the idea that these things should be of the broadest possible appeal.

I would imagine if it was a bunch of straight people in silly costumes we would be having a very different conversation... Maybe about how art was once part of the Olympics. That would be a fun thing to talk about.

"How dare the queers..." is so tiring a conversation to keep having over and over.

I would argue once the guillotine becomes a factor we don't become equal.... Some of us come up short.

I will see myself out.

Some laws are clarifications of overlaps of other laws that create wiggle room. In this instance the queer panic defense is still being used in court rooms and whether or not it passes as legit is basically up to whichever judge you get, how eloquent the defense lawyer is and how sympathetic to queerphobia the jury is.

If this firestorm of factors does occur you get a situation where there is ruled a legitimate self defense claim because a queer person existed near you.

Trans women experience this way more often than they should just more often then not there's no charges pressed. A cis straight guy approaches them to hit on them (oft times unwanted), they get clocked as trans during the encounter, the guy freaks out and no matter what the trans person does be it reject, deflect or reciprocate, the guy becomes abusive or violent. The thing that the guy is reacting to is his own homo/transphobia, not the behaviour of the trans person he approached. They could be the nicest, meekest trans woman alive who is just trying to escape the awkward situation and the abuse would still happen. There's a lot of people out there who would find the cis guy's reaction way more relatable than the trans woman's experience so that recipe for the trans panic defense still sometimes finds all the nessisary ingredients. The law leaves much less room for interpretation of what constitutes a valid point to argue self defense narratives.

Political correctness was fired in the early 2000's. It was dissected as something called "cold politeness" that wasn't really doing anything but making corporations and beaurcratic systems feel better about doing something to fix problems by slapping a new coat of paint over the mold. They subtly hired "Hey maybe just stop being a dick to people" into the role but nobody noticed it was a totally different guy.

Now when people talk about what PC would say "Don't be a Dick" struggles with feelings of never being acknowledged for the actual work they're doing. Forget what that ass PC did and try getting to know "Don't be a Dick" on their own terms will ya? They are not so bad and probably very supportive of your opinion on sexy rabbits. They attend some furry conventions I'm sure.

Oh they always just say it in a word vomit. Ie :

"The antifa, globalist, deep state, Black lives matter, gender confused mob..."

It's like bad beat poetry.

I have been stuck swamping in a truck for days with the driver blasting right wing radio. They never stopped whining about BLM, they just pepper it into everything because they no longer feel the need to talk about it on it's own anymore.

When something becomes that ubiquitous it's always there but as a supporting member of the chorus, not the one in the spotlight

Yeah... And I am saying that is bullshit.

Right!? Your average person does not understand the basics of how performance arts in general interface with the law. The perceptions of Producers is really messed up.

In film it is exacerbated a little because some people are primed to look at actors producing as an honorary role and not a practical one. Sometimes the bar does get lowered a bit to accomodate a big name by delegating a lot of the less fun bits but they are still effectively an employer and they can swing their weight around .

There's also a bit of a perception of above the line crew members by the rest of us where Producers and Directors are basically allowed to break a lot of the rules. Due diligence means we inform them of the risk but they are free to ignore it if they really want to do something that damages equipment or wastes time they are the ones paying for it so if they want to be dumb that's their privilege.

When it comes to human safety though there are a few people authorized to veto things. Crew and cast are allowed to refuse unsafe work (which is risky because we don't need to be fired, we can just not be hired on for the next job), the 1stAD who acts as the executive representative of the production liability on the set can say veto directors and producers and the Production Manager is the authority who operates on behalf of the Producers to protect their dumb butts from liability. But Producers ultimately have final say and often no consequences.

It's really interesting to me that fire dancing gets the same perception even without all the mess in the middle.