southsamurai @ southsamurai @sh.itjust.works

Posts

12

Comments

4,195

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Goblin shark

Ez-pz

Your bot is broken

Unless the DM is fucking stupid, and allows bards powers they shouldn't have, this would make it possible to seduce someone that would otherwise not be attracted to you. That's about it in terms of practical use.

I would rule that if you're actually making them gay, they're fully gay, so there wouldn't be anyone upset about being gay within the duration of the spell. They might be upset at related problems, like a partner that made a saving throw now being incompatible, but not because they're suddenly attracted to people of the same sex and/or gender.

Now, if the spell had been written so that all it changed was that they were now attracted to a different gender or sex, they might be distressed. And as written, they might be upset at the potential fallout of now being gay, but not the fact of being gay itself.

Side note: lemmy doesn't tend to censor the word suicide, or kill themselves. It's okay to use actual terms if you want. Not saying you have to, just that it's allowed.

You're either born quadruple gay, or you longingly wish you were. There's no shortcuts

You're asking a pretty specific question, but your title looks like trolling. I'm starting with that because people tend to respond emotionally to the first things they read, and it means you aren't getting solid answers.

Someone else already explained that reddit policies drove that rule, and that's as much as anyone really knows.

At least, there was a wave of changes like that one, all around the same time, and the few mods that have said anything about it off of reddit have cited that as their reason mostly.

But there are a few that decided to take it as an opportunity to blunt the edge of gendered language in general. Afaik that sub hasn't had anyone say that, but you did ask about reddit in general as well.

Expanding beyond that, and I want to emphasize that this is not the same thing as above, it's tangential and here only for background; there are reasons to reduce gendered language overall. While it isn't really going to totally change English where nobody uses gendered terms at all, reducing needlessly gendered language when speaking about people rather than men or women is an option that would help those among us that don't fit gender expectations in one way or another. So (again, this is tangential) if you're seeing it in other places, chances are that it's intended to meet that concept.

With that, responding solely to your title, I'm not seeing a trend of obsession with it, even among people that are proponents of degendering language. It's a pretty niche movement, and even the more dedicated proponents know that it isn't something that's going to happen just by applying rules to forums.

My cousin is fighting that fight too. He had to scale up to compete. It's still a "small" herd, just not as small as it used to be. No way to stay in business without going bigger. Luckily, he has so far managed to expand into dairy products successfully rather than only milk. Local made butter, cheese, etc. It sells well enough, and at a decent enough price to give cushion when one of the cows gets sick so that he can just pull them over to his "retired" cows.

I mean, nobody asked if you believed anyone

Dude, if you didn't want other opinions and input, why the fuck did you post a question?

So, fine, keep doing what you're doing if you're happy with it.

You do know that the cops are the ones that do the legwork, right? That most prosecutors rely on them to provide cause to get warrants in the first place. If the cops keep putting the same person forward as their target, that's who a DA will try to get warrants for, not some other random asshole.

If you can't convince the cops of your alibi, then chances are good that they'll keep plodding along at it, regardless of them being right or wrong.

So, yeah, the cops have something to do with it

Depends on how bad the cops want to pin it on you.

If they're on your ass hard, they'll ignore exculpatory evidence. Since only YouTube playing isn't concrete enough to guarantee much of anything about where you were, it's definitely not going to satisfy them without more.

Even the phone itself being in you home the entire time isn't definitive proof you were there.

There's not even a guarantee you could establish reasonable doubt with every record of your phone being available, so you can't pin your hopes on a jury either.

Hell, you could be on a call from a landline, and that isn't sure fire proof you were at home. It's better than a cell call, but there's ways to fake being at home over landline if someone is determined enough.

It isn't impossible though. You get the right investigators, they verify that your device was at home, and everything else is consistent with you being there, you could get bumped way down the list for their focus. Mind you, if every other possible suspect is then cleared, they'll come back to you.

Eh, in general, the use case for peroxide instead of anything else on wounds just isn't there.

Anything that's meant to kill off small living cells is going to do exactly that, and not give a damn if those cells are bacteria or your body. Now, it is true that not all chemicals will kill off every given microbe equally, and that applies to your skin/muscle cells as well. That still doesn't mean that any given agent is going to do anything useful for your healing.

If the concern is microbes, germs, quantity of rinsing simply does a better job at cleaning a wound of them. A lot of water is better than a minimal use of peroxide or alcohol, or whatever. For one thing, if you have running water, you don't have to keep opening new bottles. If you're out in the woods, you can still have a better chance of a large amount of water being available compared to finding a magic spring that spouts peroxide. So just the reality of availability makes carrying that kind of thing kinda pointless.

It's easy to look at all the bubbling peroxide does and think it's really getting in there and pulling things out, but it isn't true. If anything, the bubbling is reducing contact time with anything it's supposed to be killing. So you'd have to continue rinsing with it. And then you're right back to where water alone is better.

You don't need soap for wounds either. Indeed, you shouldn't be using it in wounds in the first place. That's never been a recommendation that I've seen. Not surprising that it would irritate a wound bed. You can use soap on the skin around a wound, but even that isn't necessary, and it's not useful unless there's contamination from something that water alone won't clear away. The only time I can think of where soap would be used directly in the boundaries of a wound would be with some kind of thick, oily substance being in it. Even then, I'm dubious as to how much benefit you'd get compared to just water or saline with gentle wiping of the wound.

Peroxide also isn't going to do anything positive to reduce bleeding. The opposite, actually, since it's going to break up platelets trying to form a scab. You might wash away enough blood from a minor cut that it takes longer to be visibly bloody again, but that just means it wasn't bleeding fast to begin with.

And, once you've used peroxide, you still have to rinse because if you don't, not only are all the particulates still in the wound, so is the peroxide. So you'd have the stuff sitting there killing cells well after you bandage the wound, and that's not a good thing at all. So why waste money and time when you can just rinse instead?

Even if you have a contaminated water supply, you'd still be better off buying saline in bottles for wound cleaning than peroxide.

You may or may not notice a difference in healing if you had identical wounds at the same time and used different methods to clean them. That's not the kind of experiment you can get away with clinically. But, if you compare outcomes from enough people over time, it starts showing up that wounds heal at least a tiny bit slower, and often less evenly. I've never read anything about scar formation, but I suspect that if you did it with two wound on the same person, you'd end up with a measurable (if miniscule) difference there.

I'm not saying to never ever use it. It's better than nothing at flushing a wound out. If you aren't in a situation where anything else is possible, go for it. But I wouldn't reach for it first.

I dunno, considering that Facebook data has been used to go after people, we've got fascists using every method possible to target their current hated group, and police everywhere ignoring or bypassing due process by just buying data, I don't think it all paranoid to think that privacy concerns are already huge, and could get worse

I haven't seen a huge shift overall

What I have noticed is more early down votes that later get raised back into the positive.

Not sure why it is, though it did roughly coincide wit the most recent reddit migration. But that isn't enough to assume causation. It's a possibility, just not conclusive since it could be any number of things.

I've been so happy to see them in our yard this year. Enough so that I've stopped clearing brush just in case that's why they're here in such numbers. I haven't seen them like this in a decade or more.

Nothing I can say in public

So, I reckon just throw the biggest party I've ever thrown and hire a bouncer that turns everyone away by saying "sorry, you aren't cool enough" to everyone, including invited guests.

I'm not sure why you're positing anything when there's established knowledge about ingrown nails, and professionals that can both diagnose any structural abnormalities, and treat them using already proven modalities.

The answer is to go back to your podiatrist and follow their instructions.

If you're having chronic ingrown nails, there's an issue that needs to be corrected, and you aren't going to improvise a solution, especially with tools that aren't designed for the job.

Seriously here, you're making your problem worse with what you're doing. If your nails are shaped weird or are growing abnormally, you aren't going to do anything useful just grinding them thin. Best case, you don't cause more ingrown nails. Worst case you get more of them, and they're worse because now they're flexing more severely, and thus dig into the nail bed in worse ways.

Nobody here can diagnose your underlying problem. Could be your footwear, could be a malformation, could be fungal (though unlikely that it wouldn't have been caught previously, fungal infection s can cause nails to grow in odd ways and lead to chronic ingrown nails), could be even less likely things.

But you aren't going to dremel your way out of it.

Go see your doctor and find out what's causing the issue to begin with.

Yeah, well, I'm suffering from epididymal hypertension, so unless you're gonna lend a hand, I think this should be covered by insurance

I dunno, I've kinda lost track of what is and isn't gender expected in terms of "mandatory" skills, and when it comes to hobbies, there's only a few that I've ever thought of as being outside of traditional options.

But, yeah, like the example given, I've always been able to sew to some degree or another. My hands don't let me hand sew big projects any more, but still know how to.

I'm also okay with decorative needlework like cross stitching, and embroidery. Cross stitch was absolutely a gender norm for women on my mom's side of my family, but some boys of my generation picked it up. Embroidery, I picked up in art classes in jr high school and just enjoyed enough to keep at it.

Crochet and knitting were also a women's craft/hobby on that side, and I tried my hand at both. Didn't like knitting much, but crochet was a nice thing. Kinda stopped fucking with it after I moved out on my own though. Not much use for it, so it was pure hobby and I had other things I'd prefer spending money on.

On my dad's side, sewing was about women's work, but everyone knew enough to patch up a torn shirt or replace a button. My grandmother was a quilter and prone to making her own clothes. I learned a little of both from her.

Both grandmothers were good with a sewing machine, as was my mom. We had a machine when I was growing up, and my mom would make clothes. So I was fairly freely able to experiment with one. Never really got into it, but I can still turn out wearable items, as long as you don't expect high fashion or expert stitching. Like, my hems are crooked as a politician, but the clothes will fit okay enough.

Truth be told, my mom's side of the family didn't really care about gendered interest limits. Us kids were always allowed to at least try things out, and were expected to help with any tasks on demand. My sister can do some basic woodworking. One of my cousins played american football in high school, the only girl in her state at the time. All of the women except my grandmother can/could change tires and oil. And all of the boys can handle normal housework and cooking, and some of us played with dolls and such.

There weren't any hard lines drawn. Yeah, our grandparents stayed along pretty traditional lines, but they would teach any of us what we were interested in, plus helped make sure we could all handle basic necessities. The only real limitations were that most of the adults had similar interests, so we could only pick things up they knew about. You wanted to learn outdoorsy stuff, you could get a dozen people teaching you. You wanted to learn about repairing electronics, good luck unless it was old electronics (my grandfather did some of that in the Navy before he became an officer, but that way in the sixties lol).

But, yeah, I'm always amazed when guys can't even sew a button on their shirt. I carry a small sewing kit with me in my day bag, and an even smaller kit in my pocket organizer. Like, it's a life skill, you need to know this shit, it isn't just for women.

What's really funny in that regard is a guy I used to know. He'd crack jokes about my sewing kit, but dude worked with leather. And he'd sew leather as part of that. But he would say, "yeah, but it's leather. That's for men. Cloth is for women, dude."

The problem isn't the balls dipping into the water

It's your dick getting stuck in the pipes.