southsamurai

@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What's easier to shoot, a bow or a firearm?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  Define easier

  In terms of making the danger dot go, guns are miles easier to initially fire. But easy only in that sense, that pulling a trigger takes less force to achieve.

  Bows are definitely harder to pull.

  However, even a simple firearm isn’t as intuitive as a bow to make ready to shoot.

  A gun, even the simplest ones, take more steps to go from paperweight to boom stick. A bow, you can just look at and tell there’s essentially three steps: put pointy part away from you, other end on string; pull string; let go.

  A gun, you have to determine what size bullet and how much propellant, load a bullet and propellant, close the gun or otherwise ensure that the bullet comes out the danger end; then engage the trigger. And even that assumes the bullet and powder don’t need anything like a percussion cap, a flint or whatever.

  If it’s a more advanced firearm, you’ll be dealing with some kind of safety mechanism, loading a magazine or revolver with the correct rounds, and how to open whatever mechanism allows you to load the rounds.

  So, guns take more non intuitive thinking to make work, and are thus harder.

  I’d say they’re roughly equally hard to shoot well, but that guns are slightly easier to shoot and hit something. Both take a lot of practice to keep tight groupings of the animation ammunition in the target. But you can kinda trust the speed of a bullet to hit what you’re generally pointing at, at close range. An arrow, it tales a little more effort to figure out how to do that. It isn’t a huge gap, but it is there.

  It’s different learning curves, basically.

  Type of device does matter some; an old school long bow is going to be a little easier for a total noob to put arrows into a target with than a fancy modern bow. And you definitely have a different set of body mechanics between long guns and handguns, as well as between rifles and shotguns. There’s nuances between revolvers and “semi auto” in handguns, bolt action vs semiautomatic in rifles and shotguns, etc.

  But, on average, if I was wanting to get someone to the point they could have a decent chance of hunting something the size of a deer, I’m going to put a rifle in their hands. They’ll, with instruction, be able to get clean kills faster than with a bow. Even with iron sights, I’ve seen kids keep sub six inch groups after a few days of practice with appropriately sized rifles, at hunting ranges. An adult should be able to be ready to roll at least that fast

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Can you actually suffocate to death from holding your breath?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Not just from that, no.

  At some point, if there’s no underlying problem, the co2 levels in the blood will get high enough the involuntary system kicks in and you’ll take a breath, which will keep going.

  Now, there are health conditions that can interfere with that, and something environmental might cause a problem, but assuming none of that is the case, all those good samaritans did was make it happen sooner.

  You can choke someone out, and they’ll still breathe eventually.

  If you “Burke” someone, that’s a different story, but even then it’s still possible for the autonomic breathing to kick back in.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it OK for a baby's head to be rolled all the way back on its neck?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Seven months?

  The baby was just fine.

  By 3, they can support themselves enough for safety in that kind of setup.

  Not that nothing bad can happen, it’s just not likely.

  For real, even under 3 months, you’ll see some ability to move the head around as it gets closer to that mark.

  Assuming you’re accurate about the baby being at least 7 months, those little buggers wobble around all the time they can. The whole world is vibrant and unfiltered for the most part, so it isn’t too unusual for one to get fixated in one direction either because there’s something interesting, or to take a break from looking around.

  Definitely not anything to worry about.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨i took an iq test and it was nice and i took my time doing it but the answer was 86, is that bad??⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  If it wasn’t Stanford-Binet or Wechsler, ignore it entirely.

  86 is well within functional levels.

  There’s absolutely no reason anyone would ask you for an IQ score to get a job (unless you’re a cop, and then they want it low anyway). That’s partly because it’s instilled useless info, and partly because most people don’t know theirs.

  Seriously, IQ scores don’t mean much at all. The only real use for them is for people with learning disabilities, to help guide them to appropriate resources. That’s it. If you’re in the normative range, it’s a useless number. It’s essentially a waste of your time to have taken it.

  Besides, you can have genius number IQs, and it doesn’t mean shit either. There’s so many other factors that matter in terms of what you can and can’t do that even at the highest possible scores, it won’t give you an automatic advantage in everything.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨oωo⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, yeah, but how did a drawing of balls become used for that?

  !I know it’s omega, not balls, but you gotta commit to the bit!<

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨GARBAGEOLOGY⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s so brutal, black metal fans burned a church in its honor

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨oωo⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Why are we meeting measuring things in balls now?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a less stinky way to cook broccoli?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  No worries :)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a less stinky way to cook broccoli?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Baked didn’t work?

  We do that as the default, and the smell is never there.

  Here’s our process.

  First, defrost if frozen. Otherwise you’re essentially steaming it as it thaws in the oven, which means that instead of browning up and getting sweeter, you end up with the sulfur compounds forming before that can happen.

  If not frozen, you should be fine to start.

  If you’re working from whole heads of broccoli, break it down into roughly even sized florettes, with the stems being cut down to maybe a half inch or so.

  Make sure it’s well oiled. It helps the heat transfer, which reduces the end smell. A big bowl helps get it evenk drizzling really isn’t great for roast veggies imo.

  Season after oiling; the salt, pepper and optionals will stick better and not burn. Now, here’s an optional, but it really is highly recommended. Acid. Lemon juice, apple cider vinegar, white wine or champagne vinegar, even balsamic. It helps break up the chemicals as they form and get released. Sliced lemons work too, though definitely keep the juices and add them too.

  Preheat to 400 or 425. No lower, you want the heat to be high enough that it cooks fast, fifteen to twenty minutes, checking at 15 and staying close after. If you have a convection oven, go with 400 for sure, and check at about 12 minutes and keep a close eye on it.

  You want the broccoli browned, and fork tender. Once it hits that, pull it.

  Over cooking is where the smell comes from. So if you get the first hint of that sulfur smell, pull it immediately, even if it isn’t done, since you don’t want the smell. Carry over cooking can finish the job, it just won’t be as yummy without that deep browning.

  Roasting is the least “smelly” option.

  Steaming, the window is short between perfectly cooked and smelly. Maybe as little as a minute. Lots of lemon slices over the top helps though.

  Boiling, you gotta parboil, blanche, then repeat. It keeps the sulfur compounds from taking over before it’s cooked through.

  Deep fried works, but it really seems like a bad idea to me. Why eat something as healthy as broccoli and dump it into hot oil? It adds unnecessary calories even if you drain it well, and breaded broccoli ia similar, plus you don’t taste the broccoli as much.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Study finds bullies have more children than non-bullies⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Is doctor girlfriend okay?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do people doctor shop? Don't all doctors pass info on all their patients between each other? And in this day and age how do they do it.?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, the term usually refers specifically to moving between doctors to gain access to specific classes of medication that are restricted. In doing so, the “shopper” hopes to bypass limitations on how much of the drug they can get in a given time frame.

  It’s almost always drugs that have recreational use and/or high addiction potential.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do people doctor shop? Don't all doctors pass info on all their patients between each other? And in this day and age how do they do it.?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  It isn’t like there’s an automatic cross reference any time you go to a doctor.

  Where people usually get caught is at the pharmacies, since that’s where most places have their tracking. When it isn’t there, it’s via insurance, since even if pharmacies didn’t track prescriptions against a database, the insurance companies that pay for your meds already do.

  Doctor shopping, on the level you’re asking about, it tends to be about finding providers that will just write a prescription with little or no difficulty. That’s the easy part of it. Doctors tend to either refuse to do pain management at all, or will only do it short term; but the ones that will do it short term tend to still be willing because they know they aren’t going to end up with hassles as long as they aren’t providing you with a steady stream. And, they also know if you’re “drug seeking” as opposed to treatment seeking, that you’ll get noticed at the pharmacy or insurance company.

  Now, if you’re actually a chronic pain patient, you can find doctors that will act as your pain management, but it’s going to be rare as hell, and they’ll keep an eyeball on you. But you’ll usually get turfed to a pain “specialist”, and have to jump through whatever hoops they prefer.

  It’s the same with things other than opiates, like benzos, ambien, etc that have a recreational use aspect, or get abused heavily/are addictive. But opiates are more or less the big doctor shopping target. Benzos are a close second, but GPs are much more likely to refer you to a psychiatrist that’s set up for handling the underlying issue than with opiates.

  It has gotten a shit ton harder to sustain doctor shopping though, because there’s so many possibilities to get flagged now. You don’t even want to know how often chronic pain patients run into issues if they make the mistake of seeing a different doctor because their primary is out of town, or retires. And gods forbid you switch pharmacies when there’s a shortage of a medication that’s controlled like that. You can end up being refused anything without jumping through a million hoops.

  I’ve seen people in their eighties flagged for pain meds. Like, who gives a fuck if they do become chemically dependent, they’re not going to be a long term risk for anything if they’re dealing with chronic pain in the first place. Too many co-morbidities.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I’m planning to teach middle school Spanish, would casually mentioning having a girlfriend cause an uproar?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Tbh, ignoring the current political climate, a teacher would be wise to minimize exposing their private lives to students at all, and even co-workers. Just as a matter of privacy and minimizing bullshit. Yeah, you should absolutely have the ability to talk about a partner or spouse equally and without fear of reprisal, but that’s a different issue from people just being assholes in general.

  Since the current US political climate is rocky as hell, not exposing your private life, even when you live somewhere with progressive policies now, is just a safety issue for one’s career.

  If you want, and/or are willing, to be a fighter and defend your rights, and thus everyone’s rights, that’s great. We need people willing to not give in. But, that’s never a requirement, and it’s still too soon to tell how bad shit is going to get, so I’d at least delay such examples from your lessons if you don’t want to take the risk.

  It fucking sucks that this is even something to worry about in this century.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why does most religion talk about their GOD being male? Especially Christains and Muslims. Is there a prominent female god that as big as the other two that I am missing?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Why? I’m not sure I’m up to a proper history of the Abrahamic religions and how their deity came to be who and what it is. Like, entire books have covered it, written by people with a shit ton more ability to research and support their conclusions than I can.

  I’m not even sure how to tackle the subject in a comment length synopsis. Suffice it to say that there is a long and complicated history that led to that branch of religion. It wasn’t a single deity growing out of nothing, unconnected to other gods and myths.

  So, I’ll limit myself to the second part of the question.

  I think that if you boil it down, Isis is probably what you’re looking for. I can’t think of any other goddesses with such a popular following across the world, across multiple eras. She was a fairly big deity in various Egyptian eras and surrounding locations, and had a major following throughout Greece and Rome over millennia.

  You could argue that Inanna was equally a top goddess, though I’ve seen it argued that they’re the same goddess with different names as “she” spread across the ancient world cultures.

  But I’m comfortable saying that Isis was, in some times and areas, way more important than Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/El/Adonai, or whatever other names you want to apply to that deity, in some of the places and times “he” has been worshipped.

  If you look only at the current world, I think you’d be hard pressed to find any goddess having that kind of almost monotheistic fervor though. Even Wiccans and other neopagans don’t glom onto a single goddess, and they usually equally revere gods on average.

  Since none of the polytheistic religions around the world throughout history really had one god above all gods on a reliable basis, you have to look at sects and cults for equivalents to the monotheistic cults and religions. And that means Isis. She was popular enough to have what amounted to a monotheistic following, here and there.

  I wouldn’t argue or fuss if anyone had another candidate, or disagreed with my take though. I sure as hell stopped maintaining my body of knowledge about religions almost twenty years ago, so I can’t pull things out of memory on the subject the way I can with stuff I keep myself refreshed on. And with something that covers as much territory as religion, you gotta keep things fresh or they get buried under mountains of memory.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why don't states in the US come up with their own health insurance program? So people can pay into it prolly less then what they pay now and the state put the money in a bank and use the interest for⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yup, like generaldingus said, it’s largely an economic barrier. There aren’t many states that could pull it off properly.

  It’s definitely possible though, but you’d have to break through so many barriers to get any current legislative body to make it happen, that it won’t.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do people care about empathy so much when it’s not needed?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Jfc, are you for real?

  Because everything you just wrote indicates you would be the worst possible leader in any situation.

  If this isn’t rage bait, it’s still just narcissistic rambling with no actual allusion question to be answered

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do most Americans use an iPhone?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Honestly, at this point, the only reason to go with either ecosystem is that Android, for now, allows you to escape Google, to some degree depending on how much work you’re willing to put in. IOS/apple doesn’t allow that

  But, Google is trying hard to get to the same place.

  But, ignoring that, apple got there first. That’s what it amounts to. The first real smart phone was by Apple, and that gave them a leg up

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Am I stroking it in my sleep?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Could be.

  There are plenty of people that do masturbate in their sleep, and it’s more common during puberty.

  However, most wet dreams are generated without manual stimulation. Typically, it’s a combination of the stimulation of the genitals against clothing, or bedding with the brain’s ability to process those signals into something else and match it up with whatever dreams are ongoing.

  In some cases, it doesn’t even need any physical stimulation at all. The brain can do all the work, so just the bare minimum stimulation from the aroused genitals just being there is all it takes to generate orgasm.

  The pumping of blood, minor muscle tension and movements are all it takes when the brain is doing its thing.

  Matter of fact, it’s possible to have a hands free orgasm while awake for the same reason, though it takes practice.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If I was a Health Care CEO after Luigi and felt in fear of my life from someone else how would I hire security? What would be a good deal? And does security act like the Secret Service to take a bulle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You would contact long of the private security firms. Probably something like Northbridge.

  Basically, those companies hire ex military and ex LEO, get them reoriented for security qork and farm them out.

  A good deal? Depends too much on the threat profile, how big a team you need, how many areas they’ll need to cover, how much you travel, etc. But expect to be paying out the nose.

  Back when I did super low end security, as in being an obvious bodyguard to deter idiots, my rate was per event, as in you’d pay me to stand there at a party and make sure you weren’t fucked with, then I left at the end of an agreed on span of time. A grand would be the norm for me back then.

  Someone doing something under contract for someone like a singer, and doing essentially the same thing, you might bring in 50-60k a year, depending on where you are. Higher than that for high profile clients, or with a lot of travel involved. That pricing is pretty old though, so don’t try and go negotiating a contract with that info.

  Someone that’s doing real security work? One person might have a base salary in the 100k range, depending. Someone with some serious credentials like having a background in government security, special forces and the like can go higher.

  Generally, if your security detail is taking a bullet, they fucked up. They will, at least in theory. Individuals may or may not actually do so, but they hire people partially based on their willingness to take decisive action like taking a hit.

  The few times I was in contact with people like that, they tended to be batshit fucking crazy enough to take a bullet for some rich asshole.

  A CEO like that dickweed? Probably has a half dozen people in rotation at most, no ability to control everything, and may or may not be able to afford the hard core people that are out there in that field. That’s going to run a fucking big expense per year. Not something they’d be paying out of pocket, even with the kind of salaries they get. If they want the kind of team that can handle even the unrealistic threats, you’re looking at a million dollar contract, easy. That’s going to be handled through their company, unless the company has an internal security department.

  The goal of a security team at that scale is to predict possible attacks, plan for them, and prevent them.

  The attack Mr Mangione is accused of, the CEO didn’t have serious security, or the shooter couldn’t have gotten that close. The client would have had meat all around him, watching for anyone moving into their defined perimeter. They’d have seen someone moving the way the shooter was, and at least have fouled the shot.

  The CEOs out there now have whined and moaned into better security. Folks that have kept an eye on such things aren’t seeing major activity from any of the big names in private security though. Frankly, they don’t need top end protection.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why have an adversarial legal system?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Okay, I have to make a few assumptions to come at this.

  First, that because you’re using English, you’re going to be most interested in an answer framed about the systems of the countries where English is a, or the, main language used.

  Second, that you don’t want a shit ton of detail, because you otherwise would have looked possibilities up yourself, because there’s character limits.

  Third, that because you asked here, that you don’t want a pile of links (which I’m rarely willing to do nowadays anyway).

  So, here’s my general purpose answer within those assumptions, which means precision and accuracy aren’t 100% a factor. None of this applies everywhere.

  So, we gotta start with trials. A trial assumes a state, as in a government of some kind. Could be as small scale as a clan or tribal council, could be as big as a nation.

  If you don’t start there, it gets crazy trying to fill in.

  A trial, by definition, is when the body of the populace (the state), regardless of the organization of that populace, accuses someone of having violated the rules of that body. It’s the “state” saying : you did this, and the individual or group saying “nuh-uh”.

  That’s the gist of what criminal justice is.

  By the nature of such a thing, you have to have a way of deciding what is and isn’t okay during the trial, and you have to decide who determines the outcome. In monarchies, or feudal systems, it would be whatever ruler is in charge, though they may delegate that decision (as in a crown prosecutor, and judges)

  Point being that a trial is inherently adversarial. It’s an accusation against a person or persons, and them having to refute that.

  In order to bypass that, you have to eschew any organization of people at all. It’s person vs person, no trials, they hash their shit out. Which is still adversarial, but we have to limit this.

  So, there’s always sides when there’s a disagreement. It’s unavoidable. If the state says you did it, and you say you didn’t, and you’re allowed a defense at all, the only question is what sides do what, with what resources. A panel of judges is just as adversarial in practice.

  When did that start? At least as far back as written history. It’s a dilemma that’s human. You ever have a sibling or other relative say you did something? If you didn’t do it, or you don’t want to admit you did, until that issue is resolved, shit is unpleasant.

  If it’s your siblings, mom and/or dad make the decision, fairly or unfairly.

  In a bigger group, it might be the elders, or whatever. Accusations of wrongdoing require resolution for a harmonious group.

  When decisions are made by a single individual, like a king, you have to rely on that king being smart, fair, and even handed, as well as wise in handing out resolutions.

  So, people all around the world have rules for that.

  A lot of the kind of rules you’ll find in the US, Canada, Australia, and places that used to be owned by the British Crown, follow rules that originated as British law. Not every detail, see the initial assumptions and disclaimers already made. But, as a broad thing, the body of law built up in England heavily influenced law in places they owned or dominated.

  A lot of that has origins in Rome and Greece, and other preceding cultures, but that’s outside the scope of this.

  So, chances are that whatever legal system you’re asking about, came about because of the way the British Empire did things. But you can look to the Magna Carta for the more recognizable facets of it. That was a document setting out rules between the ruling people on how they would treat each other.

  But the key to it is that people, in general, need protections from people in power. So those in power sometimes agree to have a system in place to minimize unfairness, at least on the surface (and that’s ignoring how successful that is or isn’t).

  That’s how it came about, an attempt to spread out or blunt the power of the state against individuals.

  Like you said, panels can work, as long as all the power isn’t vested in that panel. If your group of judges isn’t perfect, then it’s no better than a king making the decision arbitrarily.

  In theory, having the state have to present a case, while the accused offers a defense, and a jury making the decision while a judge makes sure everyone follows the rules, should be the way least prone to corruption and even when it fails, it should still be a mitigation of abuses of power. Obviously, it doesn’t work perfectly. As long as the rules are applied evenly to all, and the base assumption is that the state has the onus of proof, that’s as good as it gets in terms of humans trying to make decisions about other humans.

  To bring this to a close, let me apologize for things being disjointed. We have a rogue rooster to deal with, so I’ve been writing this in between handling stuff, which means my thoughts were not allowed to flow the way I’d prefer. So I know I missed stuff, and that it doesn’t all connect the way I’d prefer. But I gotta figure out what the hell to do with this little guy, and that means no editing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Russia-aligned hackers are targeting Signal users with device-linking QR codes⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You forgot one bottleneck. The bottleneck.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨are terfs actual feminists or do most transphobic women just call themselves that?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Like the other guy said, you missed a part, an important part

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨are terfs actual feminists or do most transphobic women just call themselves that?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Damn, you see those worms? What did you do to the can?

  Look, this is a very hot button subject. So I have to make a disclaimer.

  Trans rights are human rights, full stop.

  TERF: trans exclusionary radical feminist.

  There’s two parts to that. The first one is “radical feminist”. That ideology is where the people that hold to it believe that society as a whole has to be restructured to eliminate patriarchy and male domination. Those two things are damn near identical, but there’s enough difference to matter for some things.

  The other part is “trans exclusionary”. As should be obvious, the concept is a rejection of the principle that trans women are women.

  Now, the term terf has expanded to include any woman that rejects the womanhood of trans women, even if they aren’t actually radical feminists.

  So, no, not all terfs are actually recommended feminists. But only because the terminology has shifted. At this point, I think it’s fair to say that it’s shorthand for transphobic women despite its origin.

  That being said, yeah, radical feminism is an accepted aspect of feminism as a whole, so technically any terf that is a radical feminist isa feminist.

  That’s the strict answer to your question

  ---

  Here’s the problem with that.

  Who decides what is and isn’t womanhood? Who decides what is and isn’t acceptable in defining feminism, or who is and isn’t a feminist?

  Within the framework of radical feminism, and only within that framework (see my initial disclaimer for my belief), trans women being born with male anatomy can exclude them. There are inclusionary radical feminists that see trans women as a natural extension of the principles. Some of those, however, also lump trans men as enemies because they’ve abandoned their womanhood to submit to the patriarchy.

  Radical anything tends to be about absolutism. It’s all or nothing.

  And that’s where terfs fall. That’s where radical feminists fall, no matter who they do or don’t include/exclude. So, it’s actually difficult to peg them as transphobic, because the underlying belief system is not the same as other forms of transphobia. It does still fall under duck rule (they walk and quack like transphobes), but when it comes to deconstructing their arguments, you have to come at it from a different angle when combating their attempts at enforcing their beliefs. It’s like trying to fight a grease fire with water if you don’t come at it right.

  I know that’s beyond the scope of your question, but I think it’s an extension that matters.

  Right now, the war is about survival. And that war currently is one that needs minds changed. If you go at terfs as standard bigots, you run afoul of women that aren’t terfs, but can be influenced by them when they can claim to be targeted as women.

  In their heads, it’s a battle to keep men out of women’s spaces, to keep the invasion of men into yet another aspect of women’s lives. Since the fallout of misogyny and patriarchy is actually a constant pressure to fall into line, any attacker becomes the enemy. You can’t sway the undecided when you are actually attacking the terfs as bigots, dismissing them yet again for being women, for not acquiescing to external controls.

  You have to go specifically at their arguments, surgically. You aren’t going to sway the terfs. But you can sway others by deconstructing their arguments, in a way you can’t with a “normal” transphobe that’s using religion or arbitrary hate (woke haters mainly) as their driving cause.

  I’m not saying that you can’t counter terfs. That you have to accept their belief as valid. Again, see my disclaimer. I’m only talking about how to frame the war of words to limit their effectiveness.

  Part of that is accepting that they are a branch of feminism, or can be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Did we all give up on calling him Drumpf?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  It was always a pointless and stupid thing to begin with. It’s schoolyard bullshit. There’s way better things to call him.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨'Uber for Armed Guards' Rushes to Market Following the Assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO | Are you scared to walk down the streets of NYC and also have too much money? There's an app for that⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  It happens

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨So, is the USA screwed?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Not necessarily.

  There are still legal routes, the chances of congress not laying down on the job, etc.

  Then, you’ve got the first line of citizen action, protests and non violent direct action combined with people helping each other until the legal stuff has a chance to work.

  Beyond that, right now, across the country, small groups are trying to organize. Most of them as a form of more assertive resistance and/or a safety net for trans people, immigrants, and other targets of the current administration.

  There are also smaller groups than that organizing for the possibility of having to fight.

  That does include people just as batshit as the more rabid right wing, but most of them are less eager than the crazies to get involved in an asymmetric civil war. So they aren’t very visible.

  But there are people working at all levels to resist and turn things around.

  The way out is for everyone that can to be ready. To take risks to protect each other, and to do what they can when they can.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it normal for high sugar contents like in cake icing to make my uvula tickle?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, as others have said, it’s more likely to be a mild allergy with that specific presentation. Check with a doctor if you can, food allergies are no joke.

  However, sugar can cause an unusual sensation in high concentrations.

  First, it’s hygroscopic. It pulls water to itself. Second, it can absorb through mucous membranes. Third, even in baked goods, it has a crystalline structure.

  When it’s mixed in at low concentrations, it would be unusual to have any sensations associated with the product being sweet from sugars (as opposed to artificial sweeteners).

  But at high concentrations like in icing? Yeah, you can have lingering sensations just from sugar doing its thing to the cells at the surface of your mouth.

  I wouldn’t think to describe it as itchy, and never tingly, but I’ve experienced a tickly, kind of irritated sensation before, enough so that I went looking for what it might be.

  You can test it by creaming a small amount of sugar in a small amount of butter and eating it. If it produces the effect, it’s likely the culprit. If it doesn’t, talk to your doctor because you really don’t want food allergies going undiagnosed.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Job related: Am I being stupid?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Patient transport is one of those things where you get bored. If that’s a problem for you, it would be better to keep your toe in with other branches of nursing.

  Disclaimer: I was a nurse’s assistant, so I didn’t do that job, just know people that did.

  Also, I’m assuming you mean critical care transport.

  You’ll definitely run into moments where your skills are put to the test, but it’ll be in between a lot of waiting around. That may seem like a good thing, and it definitely can be. But it’s also why a lot of nurses end up leaving transport for other branches.

  The good thing about that is exactly what you said, you can use that waiting time to keep up on literature in the field. So, if you do eventually get bored of transport, you’ll still be up to date and have that experience under your belt. Any variety of intensive nursing is a huge plus when looking for a new job, pay raises, etc. Transport isn’t as intensive as emergency, flight, icu, or even some surgery; but it definitely hones people’s skills with communication, improvisation, and the core skills that you’d need in an ED or ICU. Those skills are always welcome in other settings too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Job related: Am I being stupid?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Depends on where you are in the world, but there are advanced nursing degrees out there.

  Here in the US, there’s a bachelor’s and master’s

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Realistically, you’re lucky you didn’t. Excessive force is a thing, and you’d have trouble convincing a jury that his dick was a threat to your life.

  A punch to the jaw, sure. Even a kick to the dick, no problem. But once you stop swinging your dick here, you know damn good and well that actually using a weapon on some perv is not going to end well for you. Some places, just brandishing it could get you in more trouble than he would get into for wagging weenies.

  Also, dude. A leatherman? As a weapon? You’d have been better off leaving the blade shut and using it to reinforce your hand for a punch, or using it like a yawara. You go trying to actually use that blade on someone, and you could lose a finger.