TheDoozer @ TheDoozer @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

921

Joined

2 yr. ago

There is a huge difference between "you're pretty and that's the only thing I know about you, want to go on a date?" And "Hey, we share a few similar interests and you are pleasant to talk to, and attractive, would you like to go on a date?"

You should have a baseline beyond simply looking at them. A date is where you get to know them beyond that baseline. If it's a stranger, it isn't unreasonable to say you should have at least a few minutes of conversation before asking them out.

It's pretty simple. If they can't just walk away and choose not to talk to you, don't shoot your shot.

If they are going through security to get on a scheduled flight, and you are security, do not shoot your shot.

If you are their boss, in your office, do not shoot your shot.

If you are purchasing something from them, do not shoot your shot.

If you are at a bar, and you are polite, shoot your shot. And accept a no graciously.

If you are at a park, and you are both walking your dogs, try to start up a conversation (not shoot your shot). And accept a no graciously.

If you are the President of the United States, and you have a 19-year-old intern in your office, DO NOT shoot your shot.

Seems pretty simple to me. I'm a man in my 40s, have started plenty of conversations with women (and men) in public, and have never had any negative experiences from it (other than coming across some VERY strange people). Weird.

Huh, that comic and the responses makes me realize how much people can't notice their own blind spots, including within the comic itself.

Like in this section with people saying it's exaggerated or nobody actually talks like that (because they don't ever perceive it in real life and it seems to ridiculous to be real), and the comic referenced in your link where she says if men were responded to that way, because she apparently can't see that it is how men are responded to for many of those things, because she's so used to seeing women as the victims of that stuff perpetrated by mostly men (which is reasonable! What situations would she see the opposite?). What's telling, though, is the way one side pegs her as a misandrist for it and shit on her work and herself for it, and the other side pegs those for being misogynist for taking issue with her (though, in fairness, some are and will hate on anything by a woman discussing problems for women).

Basically, I feel like this is two groups yelling past each other and being upset about the same issue: gender-based mistreatment. But another key thing is... well, the guys who happen across her comics should recognize that it's a comic equivalent of TwoXChromosomes from Reddit: it's by a woman, largely for women, and you should either skip it or read it for a glimpse of a perception you normally don't experience, not something to argue over. And the women, just like with 2X, should take this stuff with a grain of salt (especially when someone presumes to know what men's experiences are). Stuff is exaggerated to pinpoint an issue, but you shouldn't let it poison your view of the world (or men).

Basically, I feel like there's value in comics like PizzaCake's, but the heavy commenting should be expected, not hated on. The most value people can get from it would be hearing other perspectives without insulting them for having a different one than your own. Except the actual misogynists (and misandists), they can fuck off, but I think it's worth giving the benefit of the doubt to start.

I am convinced that vegans today will be like we look at abolitionists like Alexander Hamilton back during the 18th century. People will be horrified that we treated animals so abysmally for convenience, and some will say it was a normal and accepted practice, and people didn't realize how horrible it was, and others will point to the vegans of today.

Thoughts like those make me a little more understanding of people like George Washington. He recognized it was bad, tried to mitigate it, but still perpetuated the practice. Just like I switched to Impossible Beef and chicken, do my best to buy local family eggs, but buy cheese and milk and ice cream from big name companies like Tillamook and Ben & Jerry's.

"We need Jesus in schools!"

No joke, I've heard people say that exact thing in response. That taking God out of schools is what started all this, so if there was more prayer in school, we wouldn't have shootings.

Yeah, because nobody does mass shootings in religious places.

I have been exceptionally lucky by being in the military because our housing allowance matches the local area (generally slightly behind big market changes, though) or am just given housing with utilities paid and they take the allowance away. Also, VA loans allow for 0% down loans, which means for the same as (or in my experience, less than) rent, you pay mortgage. And the house I bought in 2017 for 180k sold for 300k in 2022 and I did little more than live in it.

Now I'm buying a house where I will be retiring, and it's 750k. Vicious, but doable. I don't know how other people live here (VERY high cost of living location in Alaska).

Edit: forgot to add, I'm 41, so working on buying my second house. Hopefully I'll still be able to afford it in 4 years when I retire.

Her kegels could probably crack walnuts. You're lucky you walked away with your dick still attached.

Seriously, it does way more harm than good giving the impression that condoms are a one-size-fits-all thing. An uneducated guy could buy a box, use the whole package getting soft every time because his dick is getting put in a mild sleeper hold, and come to the conclusion that he can't have sex with a condom.

Proper health education for boys and young men should include talking about "finding the condom that works for you." Women don't usually do one set of birth control and just go with it forever no matter how shitty it is, they try different things until they find one that works, sucks the least, or find an alternative. They don't just try a pill, have side effects, and give up on the idea of birth control because some ignorant teacher suggested that all birth control is the same because (makes some inane demonstration).

So... I'm curious why you think gang shootings shouldn't count or is a bit disingenuous to include.

You're focusing too much on the "rights" and not enough on the "Mah." Not "Our rights."

It was never about universal rights. They were pretty clear about them caring specifically and only about their rights.

90s Dominos was trash. Even Dominos recognized old Dominos was trash.

I basically fell into my life choices and they've worked out remarkably well for me. I intended, upon leaving high school, to get a music education degree and become a high school band teacher. Then due to budget reasons (and an unwillingness to take out $50-80k in loans) and having to work full time to support myself, I ended up taking a break from school (after taking 5 years to get my Associates Degree). I moved to the opposite side of the country on a whim, and after a year and a half at a truly miserable call center job, my friend suggested the Coast Guard. So I talked to a recruiter and got a report date.

Around the same time, I met a woman in my area (back before online dating was the tragic mess it currently is) while just looking for people to do things with, since I moved across the country knowing nobody. We got along, but nothing kicked off until I told her I was joining the military (leaving), we both expressed how interested we were in each other, and became a couple.

I'll spare you the longer story, but ended up proposing during "off-base liberty" in boot camp (generally speaking DO NOT RECOMMEND) because I was moving halfway across the country, and, per my proposal, "neither of us have anything, you just lost your job, and the way we both are, even if it's bad we'll stick it out for a year. And if you ever want to go back, we'll buy you a plane ticket, split what we have, and you're no worse off than you are now." We ended up getting along amazingly.

And I was worried about joining the military (which I was doing for the GI Bill so I could finish school then become a band teacher), but the job I've been doing is WAY better than being a band teacher, and I'm currently buying a house (for the second time) and getting set to retire somewhere amazing. At 46.

My life is considerably better than anything I might have planned, because I went along with the opportunities that came up. I think OP failed task successfully.

Thank you for this. It seems more in keeping with the original idea of the US, a federation of states.

Can you give some examples of how that works? Like, who pays for roads, who handles environmental regulations (or are there any), who establishes education standards (or are there any), etc. I'm not trying to argue, it just seems like on the internet people referring to "state authoritarianism" and "central government tyranny" ranges from "adults can't be transgender" to "I have to pay taxes and the government won't let me own slaves."

So, like... a cheesecake recipe?

I have had a number of conversations with relatively reasonable conservatives, where I've brought up the dangers of so many jobs moving toward automation with no additional job creation. And steering the conversation carefully, I got them to at least consider the idea of UBI funded by taxing any and all automation. I also got them (with the "everybody should have to work, people shouldn't get life handed to them for free" mentality) to agree that the rise in automation should mean people working less hours each, so everyone still has jobs (basically, UBI and changing "full time" to 25 or 30 hours, where people get overtime past that... creating more jobs while peoples needs are still covered).

It's amazing, sometimes, how starting with some similar premises (people should have to work, which I mostly agree with) and shared threat (automation taking jobs) can lead to some more open minds for things that they would otherwise be adamantly against.

When you multiply the productivity of every practitioner of a trade, they can lower their prices.

I'm sorry, but that's some hilarious Ayn Rand thinking. Prices didn't go down in grocery stores that added self-checkout, they just made more profit. Companies these days are perfectly comfortable keeping the price the same (or raising them) and just cutting their overhead.

Don't get me wrong, if there are things they could get more profit by selling more, then they likely would. But I think those items are few and far between. Everything else they just make more money with less workers.

Welp... looks like I gotta buy a Switch2.

I was with you (to a degree)until:

they’re supposed to miraculously become an expert in navigating a potentially life-destroying minefield, where the only two outcomes is magically getting it right, or risking a non-trivial probability of incarceration and a criminal record when they (invariably) get it wrong?

This is some nonsense. The worst the man will get (barring some VERY unacceptable behavior on his part) is yelled at by an angry (and probably shitty, if all the man did was politely approach at even a remotely reasonable time) woman. Which, turns out, is something women deal with from shitty men fairly regularly. It turns out, when you are interacting with strangers out in public, there is a small chance you are going to interact with an asshole. That doesn't mean you should be a hermit, that means you met an asshole. And if everyone you meet is an asshole... you're probably the asshole.

But nobody is going to jail or having life-shattering consequences for saying hello to a woman they don't know.

THAT BEING SAID, if we, as men, are regularly told that approaching a woman in public is uncomfortable, unpleasant, or downright scary for women, decent men won't want to approach women in order to avoid making them uncomfortable.

My personal experience has been to the contrary, and have struck up conversations with a number of women I didn't know in public, and never had a particularly bad experience. Maybe I am generally non-threatening, or maybe I have better social skills than some, but if all a person who rarely interacts with women hears is that initiating any sort of contact is unpleasant to the woman they talk to, I can't imagine they'd be inclined to strike up a conversation. And if they do make women uncomfortable (due to poor social skills from... not regularly interacting with women), it only reinforces that belief.

What's the answer? I don't know. But it feels like making men who care about the feelings of women uncomfortable with approaching them does nothing but leave the ones who don't care. I think the message needs to change.

Technically an amendment to the constitution, the third section of the 14th amendment, that nobody who has engaged or helped an insurrection can hold office in the government or military (except with a 2/3 majority of congress).