southsamurai
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Lots of insects get pretty important nutrients through consuming fecal matter! 19 hours ago:
That’s dedication
Homie shit in their front yard, then settled down behind their camera watching it long enough for a butterfly to flutter by and land on their butt chocolate
- Comment on Spoilers 1 day ago:
That one’s a keeper!
- Comment on What do you do if you lose an argument, but it turns out that you were actually right? 2 days ago:
I don’t really argue much any more. Or debate tbh.
If I’m confident I’m correct about a subject, it’s way less hassle to just shrug and say “okay” and let it go. If I’m right, it’ll prove out over time, and I won’t feel like a jackass for trying to prove I’m right via arguing. If I’m not, then that will too, and I won’t feel like a jackass for trying to convince someone of something via arguing.
Mind you, that all assumes that “argument” implies an attempt to change someone’s mind about something while they try to change yours, whether the exchange is heated or not. Some people don’t use the word like that, and mean more that two people are exchanging insults to some degree or another (which is just a fight to me).
But, back when I was prone to being willing to try and have my facts and/or opinions “win”, I still wasn’t prone to bringing it back up. For one, for me to “lose” an argument when I genuinely felt I was correct in my information meant I had just gotten sick of trying to explain whatever it was in the face of blind, stubborn argumentative people. Because that’s the only time I argued. So I would typically not be willing to engage with them again, and certainly not on the same subject.
Now, a friendly debate? Sure, I’d go back with new information, and present it in a friendly way. I’d do the same if it turned out I was wrong on a point of fact.
But, for real, I learned a long time ago that arguments over opinion are pointless to begin with. They never do anything beneficial for the relationship two people have, friends, family, whatever. It’s only facts that are worth trying to convince someone about. They can form whatever opinion of facts they want, and I’ll be free to decide if that opinion is so bad that I can’t interact with them or not. But the opinion itself? Never worth arguing over imo.
- Comment on 🦀 🦀 🦀 3 days ago:
Damn, I kinda want a poster of that to hang in my bathroom, right across from the toilet.
And I definitely want a decent quality copy of the original pic lol
- Comment on Why do most comedians have different drinks to drink? Most have water, Ricky usually has beer, some have whiskey and such. I get the lights make them thirst. But why not all water or something? 4 days ago:
Understand that this is second hand info. I’m not a standup, just an interested hobbyist
It varies, and there’s a difference between club comics, touring comics, and the big names doing sizable venues.
Your typical local comic that only works one or two clubs, they’re often drinking water or soda, and it’s a gimmick to sell drinks they get a cut of, though that cut might be tiny. They don’t get paid enough to really drink between sets, and they would absolutely be paying for any booze they have on stage.
Your touring comic, the ones that are usually doing clubs and smaller venues across a country, is usually the same basic idea, but you will run into them having something they prefer over water or soda. They tend to have longer sets, even in clubs, and only one set a night. So they don’t have to worry about drinking too much and fucking their act. Not that a lot of comics actually minimize drinking, but the serious ones keep it to a minimum when they’ll be on stage and save any hard drinking for after. So you’ll see some beer, maybe the occasional mixed drink.
The big names, they have more freedom, and longer sets. Think someone like maybe Larry the cable guy, on up in drawing power to where Eddie Murphy was in the eighties. Popular enough to put butts in seats solo in arenas and bigger auditoriums. They drink whatever the fuck they want on stage. They tend to pick things they either enjoy, or will keep their throat and mouth in good form. Ron White was kinda well known for scotch and other whiskey on stage, but he’d be sipping at it, and the ice was diluting it over his shows. But most of those comics err more on the side of lubricating the pipes than anything else.
- Comment on How come soccer and tennis never caught on in the states? Also why hasn't there been an NFL team vs a Soccer Team and vice versa. Just to prove which is the better sport? Details inside. 5 days ago:
Well, I’d say that tennis did catch on. Ashe, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras, the Williams sisters, Billie Jean King, Evert; they all had major followings as pros. It’s also a very popular sport to play at all levels of skill. It does have ups and downs, but in terms of pros, it’s a pretty consistent sport to be able to make a living at, which isn’t true of very many single player sports that aren’t fighting.
Soccer, yeah, it’s way behind in terms of draw. There’s a shit ton of opinions about why that is, but I’ve never really put any time into considering them because I’m not a team sports guy at all, and soccer/futbol is low on the list of what I’ll sit and watch for any period of time even when I’m in that mood.
As far as the thought experiment of pitting the players against each other, you’d run into three conflicting training and selection paradigms. I dunno if you’ve ever played both, but holy fuck do they take different bodies to do well at.
Even a running back or wide receiver is going to out mass most Soccer players, and most Soccer players would have trouble with the extra gear even if they didn’t get tackled. So you run into each sport being dominated by people that are physically less capable at the other one at pro levels. At amateur levels, that isn’t as drastic, but you’d see the players from the other sport gassing out early.
Besides, the argument about which sport is “better” has nothing to do with the players. They’re all peak level athletes in the pros, so that’s not relevant. People will argue about it, but people are mostly idiots that will argue whether vanilla is better than chocolate just because they think whatever opinion they hold is superior even when there’s no competition in the first place (they’re entirely different things, not opposites).
- Comment on Realest shit I seen all day 5 days ago:
Been there!
- Comment on Welp 6 days ago:
I mean, that’s at least partly true lol.
- Comment on Growth 6 days ago:
That’s why I said head canon.
Head canon is where you make shit up for internal entertainment. This being on lemmy, I kinda assumed that even in a science meme community, head canon would be understood. Sorry about that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m dubious if pansexual being invented by people that didn’t understand that though. The word pansexual is usually acknowledged as being derived from pansexualism, which was coined whole by or about Freud (supposedly, I wasn’t alive then to know) to mean that sex and sexuality are a primary motivation in all human existence.
The later term came around back in the seventies, and was being used to mean having no limits on sexuality. I’ve run across people saying they used it as far back as the sixties in that context, but they were dirty hippie potheads, sooo…
In any case, it was in use during at least the late seventies, as it showed up in print in some of the books of the era that were part of the sexual revolution. And it didn’t “just” mean trans inclusive, nor was it used as a direct synonym for bisexual. It very much included things like what gets called polyamory now, group activity, etc. The core usage was that the person calling themselves pansexual was not limiting themselves to the standard paradigm, which is a different thing from being attracted to and/or having hetero and/or homo sexual activity.
I’m not sure exactly when the term got shifted to the increasingly common usage of “trans inclusive sexual orientation”, though I remember running into it as far back as either the late nineties or early oughts.
So, I’m fairly confident that the people back in the sixties or seventies that originated it as something close to an orientation knew that bisexuality existed, and saw pansexual as being something that went beyond it in some way. I’ve definitely never run across any definitive “first use” where the term was defined in print. Not saying it wasn’t, just that none of my reading of the matter back in the day uncovered it, and human sexuality was very present in my mom’s collection of books. Our town library even included books on the subject, though less than what my mom had, and way less than I had access to later on.
With that in mind, if you have run across something definitive regarding the origin of the term either in the seventies sense, or its adoption as trans inclusive, I would absolutely love it if you could guide me to it. Not being snarky, not being contrarian, I’d genuinely enjoy learning more about it because it’s a subject that’s fascinated me since I was old enough to think about sex at all.
- Comment on We do not get a choice of how we come into this world or who we came into this world by but how come we can't go out on our own, wouldn't that be a full life doing everything u wanted 2 do? 6 days ago:
I’m with you. Even before I did any end of life and hospice care, I believed in the principle. But after seeing what death is really like, I’m an adamant proponent of the right
- Comment on Welp 6 days ago:
Let’s be fair though. There wasn’t a body of data to work from, the science side of it was essentially in its infancy, and you do have to start somewhere.
For all the flaws in his conclusions, he did do a marvelous thing in the awareness of mental health being addressable in a more gentle way
- Comment on Growth 6 days ago:
I tend to head canon it as binarysexual and pansexual, just as a way to keep them straight (heh) when running through things in thought
- Comment on Growth 6 days ago:
Wait, wait, wait, pansexual is when you have a love for wide screen photography, right?
- Comment on We do not get a choice of how we come into this world or who we came into this world by but how come we can't go out on our own, wouldn't that be a full life doing everything u wanted 2 do? 1 week ago:
It’s called the right to death, and some folks very strongly despise the abrogation of that right
- Comment on If we take physicality out and the tran debate. Doesn't almost everything boil down to a single choice? Like alcohol, tobacco, weed, heroin and other addictives. More inside. 1 week ago:
As is often the case, you’re asking an interesting question hidden beneath some of the worst possible phrasing you’ll find online lol
At least, if I’m getting your gist, you’re asking “if we ignore that trans people nare fundamentally trans from birth, wouldn’t it be fair to compare it to any given choice a person makes?”
Assuming I’m reading you right, that’s a good question, but it has a major flaw in it. Comparing transness to a recreational drug is just bad. For a good comparison that fits the restrictions on your thought experiment, you’d want to compare it to steroids, “back room” plastic surgery, or other body altering decisions that are currently not allowed under law, and are also socially stigmatized, as well as causing permanent/long term changes.
So, no, even when pretending that what makes a person trans isn’t started in the womb, it does not boil down to a single choice the way an addictive substance would.
First, not all substances are addictive quickly. None are immediately addictive that I’m aware of. So if transness were a choice, it would still differ in that way.
Second, there is still a difference between making a choice to engage in a long term process and being pressured into a short term action via social manipulation. One can only be peer pressured for so long before a breaking point is reached, though that point may still result in the individual accepting the social pressures and following them.
Thus, it would mean it isn’t a single choice, it’s a chain of choices.
Now, there’s another aspect to the general idea of transness being a choice rather than a state of being (and, again, that’s just the restriction of the thought experiment, not a fact). It begs the question that if individuals have freedom of choice to do a given harmful thing, why can we not choose all harmful things for ourselves? Why can we consume alcohol, but not steroids? Why do we allow restrictions on some things but not others? I’ll let you guess the answer to that as it goes off on a major tangent.
And, indeed, if being trans were a choice, it should be completely treated the same as deciding to get a tattoo or stop at the pub for a few pints. Mind you, that assumes that body autonomy is something we should all have. Anyone that doesn’t believe that is welcome to their opinion, no matter how shitty it is, but I won’t debate it.
Now, you deny that predisposition exists. I’m not sure how or why you came to that conclusion, what with the very clear evidence of predisposition to things like breast cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or any of dozens of diseases known, beyond any reasonable doubt to have a genetic factor that increases the chances of them from marginally to vastly, or even almost certain.
Denying predisposition to other illnesses as even possible is just poor thinking. When there is compelling evidence to the contrary, holding that belief is on par with hating vaccines in terms of sheer thick-headed duncery. Anyone believing that it isn’t possible is quite welcome to that belief, but then again, they’re equally welcome to believe the sun rotates around the earth, which happens to be flat. So, you know…
With that in mind, I suspect you are, indeed, out of this world on this one lol.
To conclude, transness is still not perfectly understood. Since a great deal of it exists as physical aspects of the brain, and seem to stem from hormonal and epigenetic processes in the womb, I doubt a fully perfect understanding will come along any time soon.
But it is absolutely, positively, 100% not a choice. One might choose to transition for other reasons, as humans are a complex and interesting species. But that’s different from being trans in any real sense.
- Comment on Anon's dad tries to bond 1 week ago:
From someone that’s been there, try to work on that mental switch. Even if the kid sees you as an exception, and really doesn’t care if you don’t, it’s still a powerful thing to do it anyway. You can still crack jokes together and fuck around, but if you put in the effort to shift your language the rest of the time, it seriously uplifts someone that’s in the process of finding their path as their authentic self.
And yeah, it is true that a decent number of kids in particular (as opposed to folks that are transitioning as adults) don’t care about pronouns when their loved ones support them in every other way (or even just in most ways). They know some old fart has decades of brain patterns built up, and years of thinking of them as a given gender. They know it won’t happen overnight, and thus aren’t hurt by slips, or are hurt way less. But I’ve never met a trans kid that didn’t feel happy and loved by a close family member putting in the effort anyway.
I promise you, the worst that can happen from trying is you get razzed for fucking up
- Comment on Should I donate sperm? 1 week ago:
Honestly? Yeah, go for it.
It really doesn’t matter why or what criteria someone uses to select a donor, you’re doing something nice. For a couple that can’t conceive because of sperm issues (whatever those issues might be), having a variety of anonymous donors to pick from empowers them in a way that is really unique.
Think about the whole of human history where infertility was insurmountable without an outsider being directly involved in an intimate way. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it isn’t for everyone. Medical assistance gives freedom and independence of choice way beyond what used to be possible.
So, yeah, if you don’t have some major genetic problems, donate.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
If you’re broke, pretty much all of the usual external aids are out unless you already have them
Valerian nd kava have pretty potent anti anxiety effects. Pretty much the most potent ones, and the most reliable plant based stuff since even with the usual variances, you won’t have zero effect, nor too heavy.
So that kinda leaves you with non chemical options (just because they’re plant based don’t mean they ain’t drugs, ya dig).
Breathing exercises are the front line defense, even if you aren’t in practice, so you start there. Doesn’t even matter what kind, because there’s a chain of control. Control your breathing, control your heart rate and brain patterns. Control those, you control the stress chemicals being released, and that’s where the panic attack part really lives
It isn’t instant, but it works.
The problem is starting them. What I found helped a good bit when I could, was the opposite. Start out doing anything that spikes respiration and pulse. Sit ups, pushups, jumping jacks, whatever you can tolerate physically. Just crank out enough to spike your breathing and pulse a little. It serves multiple purposes, but the key to it is breaking the cycle of the attack. Usually, once you get that spike, you’ll be able to engage breath control easier than if you try starting that first.
Beyond that, you gotta find things to ground yourself in the real world instead of your head. Again the what doesn’t matter much, but I tend to find practical, hands on stuff works well enough. Like, sharpening knives grounds me (it’s my thing, what can I say). If there’s something that normally centers you and lets you kinda hit flow state, that’s the thing to try.
Shit, even something that’s mostly bad for anxiety can work if the ritual of it is calming enough. Like the process of making tea can help despite the caffeine sucking for anxiety.
None of it is easy without a breakthrough option though, and I’m not going to blow smoke up your ass and pretend otherwise. So if you do already have valerian, or an antihistamine, lead with that, but follow up with breathing exercises anyway!
You gotta use a multifaceted approach.
- Comment on How far back into the human/mammal family tree does one think we would have to go to find a genetic relative that doesn't give a whit about how good their hair looks ? 1 week ago:
The question in the title is essentially unanswerable. It’s not even possible to point to where an awareness of attraction as opposed to just existing started, or if there even was a starting point.
That being said, chances are that it began at the same point as humans became self aware. Most mammals and plenty of other critters put some degree or another of energy into maximizing their presentation, even if only during mating season.
At some point, any creature that becomes self aware is also going to start seeing the benefits of caring about that.
I suspect you’d be looking at somewhere before homo sapiens, but after whatever “missing link”. Not that I’m confident in the whole idea of a missing link, but that’s tangential. What isn’t tangential is that a lot of the early human-ish critters exhibited signs of self awareness to some degree, so I can’t imagine that sapiens were the first to have it. I seem to recall there being primitive equivalents to combs and such as far back as like ,habilis? Don’t bet money on my memory though
- Comment on How do you vet a person asking to be a mod? Unlike others don't want to read their entire post history. How come pretty much no one is asking to be a mod on c/askhistorians? 2 weeks ago:
The only way to vet a mod is their history.
Be that user history, or communities they’ve modded. There’s no short cuts, other than delegation. But, you know, that takes having other mods, or at least people you trust to do the work.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, but why does it feel so good when I stick my dick in it?
- Comment on If a person goes "missing" and never found. How long does it take for life insurance to kick in and bank accounts resort back to the family? 2 weeks ago:
Damn, that’s a horrible diagnosis. Sorry.
But, as others have said, love insurance has a shit ton of escape clauses because they don’t want to pay out. It isn’t enough to be dead necessarily, the manner and/or cause of death can be a factor.
Bank accounts are easier because you can just add people in to have access. Usually some hoops to jump through, but doable. There’s also power of attorney, which helps with more than just bank issues.
My plan in the event of that diagnosis is to find some forest and get lost before I forget how to get lost.
- Comment on How come people don't compliment other people on great word usage? If someone use the word lets say ecclesiastical or something like that they do not get complimented it shows they respect English. 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, I’m a word nerd, but a vocabulary isn’t inherently about intellect. It’s about putting the effort in, because even people with severe learning disorders can still amass l arge vocabularies. Now, using them appropriately rather than just collecting them does take a little more effort and thought, but it’s also not some kind of feat of genius. Anyone with reasonable capacity can use fancy words appropriately.
Don’t get me wrong, I fucking despise people that shit on the sheer joy that language can be. We don’t have to limit ourselves to “double plus” thinking or speech, and shouldn’t. And anyone trying to act like having a varied and sizable vocabulary is some kind of flaw can suck the peanuts out of my shit (or whatever varieties of legumes they prefer from my feces, if they feel so inclined).
But the only thing vocabulary really indicates about a person is that they value their vocabulary.
- Comment on What happened to Kathy Griffin after she pulled her little stunt? Why does it seem she was "canceled"? Heck the guy who posted 8647 has to give reasons before congress. 2 weeks ago:
Which stunt?
- Comment on Redditors discussing "Is the threat of inbreeding exaggerated?" is it true? 2 weeks ago:
I rarely complain about voting, but it annoys the fuck out of me that this question is in the negative. It’s actually a damn good question
- Comment on How come people don't compliment other people on great word usage? If someone use the word lets say ecclesiastical or something like that they do not get complimented it shows they respect English. 2 weeks ago:
They do!
But it’s rare for multiple reasons.
First, both the listener and the speaker have to know the word, because otherwise there’s no reason to compliment it
Second, the listener (or reader, but I’m too lazy to type both every damn time) has to care about word usage, and it’s kinda niche.
Third, there’s a significant degree of anti-intellectual belief out in the world, so that segment is going to have the opposite response, and they’re prone to being obnoxious about it.
Fourth, giving compliments is not something everyone is good at, so there’s a segment that might appreciate it, but not know how to express it.
Fifth, a corollary to the fourth, it can feel awkward to give compliments, so it gets shoved avoided, which is partly due to sixth:
Sixth, as a culture, complimenting someone is a complicated social action. There’s all kinds of little unspoken rules around it, and that makes a lot of people just nope out entirely.
But if you hang around people that enjoy word play and vocabulary, you’ll see a lot more compliments :)
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
Popular? For a given value of popular, absolutely.
You’re a high volume poster with a very distinct writing voice. Doesn’t take long to start recognizing the pattern, which will inevitably mean the user name is recognizable as well.
Me? I tend to really enjoy your nostupidquestions posts, even when I have no idea what in the fuck you’re asking. See, a community like this needs members that will essentially post whatever the fuck is on their mind with little or no filter. On reddit, there were subs where one or two folks like that made them worth dividing visiting because it opens the gate.
Even when you ask something that’s off the wall and barely intelligible, it spurs reaction, thought. Even when that thought/reaction is negative, it makes people think about what they wish would be posted.
And, on top of the gate opening, people that ask whatever the hell is in their head tend to ask things nobody else would. You have no idea how many times you’ve asked some off the wall shit that made me really think because I would have never approached the subject in that way. There was a guy on reddit in one of the niche subs that was the same way, and I always took extra time to consider his asks because it often led to me thinking something new, even if I couldn’t give a useful response.
Though, being real, sometimes I have no clue what in the hell you’re getting at lol.
- Comment on What is happening with all the explosions in America and Mexico? First it was California then Washinton now it's Mexico? 2 weeks ago:
You’re screaming against the wind of hundreds of years of language usage.
Besides, in English, if you’re referring to both continents, you say the americas, and use north or south if specifying one or the other
So, no, Mexico isn’t in America, it’s in North America by conventional English usage. Or it’s in the Americas, if you want to be all inclusive.
Those terms wouldn’t necessarily apply directly in Spanish, French, or Portuguese, and many countries in the Americas use terms in those languages to differentiate between the United States of America and the continents. Los estados unitas, el norte, etc. Depends on exactly where you are as to what gets used afaik, but my exposure is mostly to Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Puerto Ricans, and the occasional Guatemalan, and those two terms are what I’ve heard most.
But in English? America is the default when referring to the us, since it’s cumbersome to use the united states in both speech and print. America just takes less time, and it’s so common that anywhere you go in the world, if you say America while in context of a single place, they’ll understand what you mean.
- Comment on if all birds sing and if they do why do geese honk, ducks quack, and chickens bawk? 2 weeks ago:
All three of those have songs.
Ducks can do this strange little warble when in their own groups. Geese sing hymns to satan. Swans I haven’t been around enough of to have heard their sweeter sounds, but I’ve been told they exist.
But chickens? They sing. Even roosters, but hens in particular have multiple songs. Trills mostly, and the one you hear most is when they’re sleepy and letting each other know all is well. They can do this little purr when they’re feeling all lovey or wanting treats. They even chirp when surprised.
The bawks aren’t even singular. Depending on what they’re doing and what’s going on, it can be quiet like buks, loud and annoyed baaawks, friendly tuk-tuks when food is around, trouble boks when they’re after something and trying to be all stealth but can’t just not make sounds, outright squawks when complaining about something. They have a rich range of vocalizations. Maybe not as complex as something like a parrot or raven, but I’d say more complex than the budgies I’ve been around.
That’s not even getting into other sounds they make as a side effect of other communication efforts. Beak clicks, clacks, and snaps. Wing beats and feather ruffles.
Roosters gobble! Very similar to the classic turkey sound, though not identical enough that you’d mistake one for the other. They also make loud whistles, hisses (which hens can do, but rarely get scrappy enough to fight, so it’s rare), and screams.
But roosters also sing their version of trills and purrs.
Thing is, unless you really chill with your chickens, you won’t hear most of them. Day to day, they’re out hunting and pecking and buk-bukking, with the occasional bawk bawk when they find something interesting. But if you’re with them for a while, you’ll catch the others.
- Comment on I will never unsee the penis on my sons $0.50 sandal 3 weeks ago:
I mean, with all due respect to your undoubtedly wonderful son who will now be forever known as “dickfoot”, I’m not sure how justifies even mild annoyance, much less miniscule fury. Pareidolia is in the eye of the beholder, not that of the sight. It’s a pixelated heart with a streamer, not a penis. It’s only barely phallic if you stretch phallic as a term far longer than you should ever stretch an actual phallus.
Funny as fuck all! But not really something to be infuriated over.
Hope you and Dickfoot have a wonderful day!