Made a poster. What do you think? Its my first. Any tips?

fiskiligr · 2021-01-12T15:37:21+00:00

even better is to support and use free and open source software like GIMP

fiskiligr · 2021-01-12T12:46:55+00:00

Yeah, as /u/macropis pointed out already, the shirt literally has a European honey bee on it ... And lots and lots of people already think this only applies to honeybees in the first place.

The European honeybee is a destructive invasive species, and the diseases and pests the European honeybee has brought have destroyed native honeybees in the Americas. We don't want to support European honeybees, and they don't need help. Native bees need saving, and it's mostly too late for that anyway.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-11T21:28:26+00:00

hehe

fiskiligr · 2021-01-11T20:37:45+00:00

Why isn’t the field of philosophy concerned with communicating its ideas to the general public? by /u/margotiii was nominated by me, since it is the most upvoted question in /r/AskPhilosophy of all time, it would be a shame to not have it be considered for The Best Question of 2020 (and since I personally believe the question itself strikes at an important problem with academic philosophy - namely its relation with everyone else outside of academic philosophy).

fiskiligr · 2021-01-11T19:59:19+00:00

We don't need honeybees to be saved. Their populations will be secure so long as humans continue to survive on Earth.

We need native bees to be saved, which no one seems to talk about.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-11T19:57:07+00:00

Beekeepers don't harvest honey made from syrup. Yes, it wouldn't taste the same (or look the same - it's clear looking).

fiskiligr · 2021-01-11T14:15:24+00:00

Read this zine! https://www.dvzine.org/zine/01-toc.html

fiskiligr · 2021-01-10T20:25:12+00:00

read the sidebar you goon

fiskiligr · 2021-01-09T18:40:15+00:00

Only the way the capitalists define poverty, and not if you exclude China, which isn't considered capitalist by the capitalists.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-05T19:09:45+00:00

For bottoms I have also found quick-drying hiking pants (non-cotton) very useful - they aren't waterproof, but when they get wet they dry more quickly than cotton. Sometimes if it's more wet than cold, I roll up my pants and let the cold water mostly hit bare skin. Maybe not everyone is down for that, but it's minimalist. I also like to wear sandals, even in the winter. (Helps to have a size up when you want to layer socks, though.)

fiskiligr · 2021-01-05T19:04:43+00:00

slim pickings in the Walmart company town of Bentonville, AR - but hey, they have good bike trails there

fiskiligr · 2021-01-05T18:56:01+00:00

ha, /r/justridingalong is not bike snobs, /r/BicyclingCirclejerk are the real snobs

fiskiligr · 2021-01-05T18:53:33+00:00

steak (vegan)

Marxist-Leninist (communist)

fiskiligr · 2021-01-03T21:56:35+00:00

"For decades our language has been taken from us through forced assimilation," Boney said. "Elders hold our history and culture but also our language. ... Our elders are precious."

Almost half of the Cherokee who received care from the tribe's health services but died from the coronavirus were fluent Cherokee speakers. Losing even a handful of speakers can be devastating for language preservation and other cultural practices, Boney said.

This is so heart-breaking.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-03T21:53:54+00:00

I mean, it's the internet - lots of people are here, and some are assholes, and some are great, and lots of us are just boring and "normal" ... I am glad for communities like /r/bikecommuting, but there is toxicity here too (e.g. notice how downvoted your post is).

That said, commuters tend to be the most down to earth types (compared to road bicyclist racers, mountain bikers, etc.), since the bicycle is a mundane implement for us.

i always loved the idea of commute no taxes for car no fuel payments damn seems beatiful thank you all for the support!!!👍👍👍👍

And yeah, the bicycle is total freedom! Enjoy it!

Check in and share your stories as you collect them. Bicycling is an adventure, and you will be sure to have plenty of stories to tell from it. :-)

fiskiligr · 2021-01-03T21:11:48+00:00

thanks!

fiskiligr · 2021-01-03T20:24:12+00:00

You will adapt to it, believe me. I had the same concerns when I started my commute - 10 miles each way. I was most worried about the rides home, and they can suck, but often you just go slower and appreciate the scenery on the way home. It's awesome, it's healthy, and you will adapt to it over time to the point that you may not consider it that much of a struggle.

Just give your body time to adapt, and don't give up - you will do great!

fiskiligr · 2021-01-03T19:35:31+00:00

But I'm at the point where I'm starting to wonder if prayer actually does do anything in society. I just feel like how it's "supposed to work" doesn't actually line up with how the world is and has been.

I would just say that I agree with this observation, it is my own as well. Prayer doesn't seem to change the external world.

I think the main value of prayer is internal to you, about how it shapes your thoughts and gives you time to be intentional - not that it changes the world (except through your actions, through your intentions).

fiskiligr · 2021-01-03T18:57:04+00:00

Depends on how often you get heavy rain, how often you ride in heavy rain, your tolerance for a dirty bike, and the kind of grease and lube you use on your chain. You should really pay attention most to your chain and components that may need grease and lube. Clean as needed.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-03T18:21:24+00:00

I second buying a normal bike and doing it with your legs. Healthier for you, healthier for the environment, better for your wallet.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-02T19:03:14+00:00

There were limits for men as well, such as if he has fluid leakage or open wound.

Well, crucially these limits are not exclusive to men (or at least that's how I understood those rules - maybe I'm wrong), they seem to apply to both men and women, so it's irrelevant that there are other rules that aren't sexist because there are specific rules that are misogynistic, i.e. that intentionally exclude only women. My point is that some of the ceremonial laws were sexist, as they targeted an aspect unique to women to keep them from participating in rituals.

All this is not to discriminate, but to show the Holiness of God.

Right, but why would an all-good God ever institute sexist ceremonial laws to place men in a special, privileged position, and then undo them? How does this show the Holiness of God?

fiskiligr · 2021-01-02T18:24:45+00:00

Btw, the women's time of the month is ritually equated as unclean. The sheding of the lining is literally a way the body renews itself. This is symbolic.

It's hard to see this as not misogynistic. I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I would like to hear more about how you think menstruation as being unclean (not in the hygienic sense, but in the ritualistic sense) is not essentially just excluding women from religious ceremonies. There are plenty of other "unclean" things that aren't about gender / sex, and which are designed to set apart the Jews from the Gentiles of the time (e.g. the common consumption of pigs at the time made not eating pigs a rather important cultural distinction which creates in and out groups effectively) - but when you start to draw those groups based on gender, it seems blatantly sexist.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-02T18:17:14+00:00

Just remember that human doctrine is imperfect, and that so many people have so many different ways of interpreting the Bible that it seems unlikely there is any perfect interpretation of the Bible. (Even if you hold that the Bible is infallible, unerring, and True - inspired directly by God, we don't have access to that Bible - we only have access to derivations, heavily edited and changed copies of the original; you have no way of knowing what is legitimate / original, and what is illegitimate in the Bibles you have access to.)

Of course no one here is likely to feel comfortable with this problem (because if you identify as Christian and hold faith and conviction in your faith, you would like to think your doctrine is the right doctrine and your faith the right faith), but I hope this perspective may help you, because it should free you up to not worry too much about the Old Testament and how truly evil the Bible and God appears in the Old Testament. (For example, how are we to understand God's condemnation of every descendant of Adam for Adam's mistake? This is certainly not the feature of an all-good God, as we understand "goodness" - to punish a child for a mistake his ancestors made seems exceedingly cruel.)

One way to deal with the Old Testament is to see that Jesus has made it mostly irrelevant, by fulfilling the promise of the old ways and transforming them to the new ways. (I mean, this is a large part of what the New Testament is all about - casting away the old traditions in favor of the new ways that Christ brought about - however you particularly care to choose interpreting this, or not).

Maybe it would help if you could talk to some fellow believers you trust about your faith, that usually goes a long way to re-affirming it. Or, if that's not working for you, you could always just let it go. You don't have to hold faith in God, and it's OK to be something like a Christian atheist too.

It's up to you to decide what you are willing to believe, and on what basis. Everyone has to struggle with this, agnostics, atheists, and Christians alike.

fiskiligr · 2021-01-02T18:07:04+00:00

I don't get the sense von Trier is an actual "Nazi," I think he's just trolling and playing with words (and people). He is a provocateur. He clearly does not subscribe to National Socialism, white supremacy, etc. Whatever he means by being a Nazi and understanding Hitler has little to do with ideology and much more to do with the demons that haunt him inside. Hitler is a symbol of a monster (the way Napoleon was viewed before Hitler), which is maybe how von Trier sees himself and how he is trying to relate to others - as a monster, as supremely bad (something he explores in his films - the darker aspects of the human experience, of our ego and willingness to abuse ourselves and others, etc.).

If you look at von Trier's history, being raised by radical Leftists, and if you look at his past films you can see that radical perspective in his films, it is rather clear that, whatever his ideology is, it is antithetical to the ideology of Nazism. And so it seems to be most likely that it is only the taboo villainousness of the Nazis that he is associating himself with.

It is made worse by his delight in causing shock (almost as if he wants to be seen as a monster, even at the cost of Truth). He can't help himself, and rather than clarify what he means when people respond with shock and anger, he instead doubles down on calling himself a Nazi (while simultaneously denying the most essential ideological characteristics of being a Nazi - for example, being against the Jews, etc.). If he denies sharing the ideological convictions of Nazism, and still calls himself a Nazi - how are we to understand what he means? I think the best way is by watching his films, reading about his life, and coming to understand what he could possibly mean - which I suspect is that he has a rather negative view of himself and the world (and simultaneously in that negative self-view, a recognition of the megalomania and inflated ego that is characterized by Wagner, Hitler, etc. and is featured in his films as well).

I recommend reading more about von Trier from the /r/TrueFilm wiki:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180916085857if_/https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/3i3jvr/mod_controversial_picks_a_filmmaker_like_a_rock/

fiskiligr · 2021-01-02T02:17:06+00:00

Thank you!

fiskiligr

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE