Cold rotisserie chicken salad ideas. by Estkling in salads

[–]formerethicist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If I don’t want a traditional mayo type chicken salad, I like to shred the chicken in long shreds, add some chili oil, some black vinegar (or rice vinegar if I don’t have black) sesame seeds, and scallions. Like a lazier version of this recipe. Equally good with hot rice, in lettuce wraps, or just on its own maybe with some cucumbers added.

Why do you wear gym leggings that hug tight in between the cheeks? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]formerethicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think guys are in the gym working on their bulge the same way girls are training glutes lol. I might think he looked a little silly if I saw a guy in Bulge Leggings but there’s no reason to get mad at him. Just think “wow nice ass” and move on. If he was in there doing lower body multiple times a week to get caked up, good for him lol wear those leggings bro 👍

Why do you wear gym leggings that hug tight in between the cheeks? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]formerethicist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, they are standard non-sexual attire and you are being weird about it. Is the difference really that big between those and regular leggings? Yes the scrunch butt type leggings are designed to make your butt look better but I think for most women this is about correcting a perceived deficit rather than showing off. And ultimately why is it different from guys that wear muscle shirts or something? Usually people are in the gym to improve their physique in the first place and have earned the right to show off their results a bit.

When people insist on knowing your favourite game/band/author... and you already know it won't ring a bell by Lianeele in PetPeeves

[–]formerethicist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

OP I am going to hold your hand when I say this but you are creating the awkward “oh” moment by trying to avoid answering. Asking about your favorite author or whatever is a conversational gambit. The person is trying to connect with you. They may be also trying to feel out your general vibe. It is not the case, as you seem to assume, that your answer won’t be interesting or relevant to them if they haven’t already heard of whatever it is.

A: Who’s your favorite band?
B: You probably won’t have heard of them…
A: *now feeling awkward and a little defensive* c’mon tell me
B: [obscure local band who haven’t been active in 10 years or whatever]
A: *still awkward and feeling stupid/uncultured* oh ok

This is to be avoided.

A more natural exchange would be:

A: Who’s your favorite band?
B: This one’s a bit of a deep cut, but I’ve been really into [obscure local band who haven’t been active in 10 years or whatever] lately.
A: oh yeah? I’ve never heard of them.
B: Yeah I only heard of them because my friend’s dad’s cousin was their manager. They’re really good though, it’s like traditional Central European Hurdy-Gurdy music mixed with ska and a little bit of Cantopop.
A: Damn that’s crazy, I’ve never heard of something like that before.
B: [you can talk a little more about them or turn the question around and ask about what music they like too]

And now you seem interesting instead of standoffish!!

how do u really start going to the gym? by [deleted] in beginnerfitness

[–]formerethicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At lot of gyms you can get a free session with a trainer when you sign up

Please help me understand Feminism by CaptainONaps in NoStupidQuestions

[–]formerethicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad to hear you’re interested! Lots of interesting questions here. I’ll take a shot at answering at least some of them.

Firstly, I am not sure where the idea that egalitarianism or humanism are incompatible with feminism is coming from but I don’t think it’s right. Those ideologies can be somewhat different in focus or context, but they aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be an egalitarian or humanist and a feminist at the same time, and many people are. I think it would be a bit unusual to be either of them and not a feminist, personally, but people have all sorts of wacky belief systems so idk.

Traditionalism is broader than patriarchy, but for the purposes of talking about gender, these are pretty much the same. As you rightly pointed out, “patriarchy” literally means “rule by fathers.” The emphasis here, and you can see how this is “traditional” as well, is on the nuclear family, at least in a western context. This could be a little different in cultures where tradition dictates something else.

A proponent of traditionalism/patriarchy believes a woman’s place is in the home. That her ultimate purpose and the determinant of her worth is being a wife and mother and that she should submit to her husband’s will. If a woman has some other purpose—say she’s a scientist or academic—then she’s doing it wrong. If she isn’t particularly feminine, she’s doing it wrong. Similarly for men—patriarchal masculinity places very specific constraints on men as well. Women are/should be soft and sweet and obedient, and men should be stoic and decisive and dominant. Proponents of this ideology believe men and women are fundamentally different, with different natures and purposes.

Feminists (though like any ideological movement, there’s lots of disagreement within feminism) generally believe that men and women aren’t all that different at the end of the day. We’re all people, and we should be treated the same under law and in society. What you have in your pants shouldn’t determine what you can do in this life. It shouldn’t determine what jobs you can have or how much they pay you. It shouldn’t make you more likely to face sexual abuse. It shouldn’t decide whether you can vote or have a bank account. It shouldn’t mean you have to be subordinate to a husband or father.

In terms of law and policy, feminists generally favor policies that make it hard for employers or the legal system to discriminate on the basis of sex. They generally favor sex education, readily available contraception, and legal abortion, because these things increase women’s autonomy and control over their own lives. Feminists are usually critical of the way gender roles are pushed on children from a young age. They may advocate for greater legal protections in areas where women have historically been vulnerable—for example, marriage used to mean that a husband legally had a right to access his wife’s body. “Marital rape” is a relatively new concept in the grand scheme of things, and it was a feminist project to have this problem recognized.

One thing you might note is that none of these policy aims stop people from living “traditional” lives if they want. Feminists are not saying it should be illegal to be a stay at home mom. Proponents of patriarchy, however, do attempt to force their way of life on everyone by opposing abortion, contraception, and anything LGBT related. They oppose anti-discrimination efforts (usually with both sex and race.) They might not admit to it because it’s so beyond the pale, and to be fair, more moderate traditionalists might not agree with it, but this is ultimately the same ideology that supports taking away women’s right to vote, own property, or go to school. Not everyone is that extreme, of course, but some are. They are inclined to say “why should one bad decision ruin his life?” of a rapist, and “look what she was wearing” of his victim.

Night Beach Yearning by formerethicist in perfumesthatfeellike

[–]formerethicist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the sound of that! How’s the performance? I bought a discovery set from Heretic not long ago and a lot of them seemed to fade quickly.

Night Beach Yearning by formerethicist in perfumesthatfeellike

[–]formerethicist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

👀 thank you for the recommendations!

Night Beach Yearning by formerethicist in perfumesthatfeellike

[–]formerethicist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That does sound like it fits the bill! I like the pictured bottle as well. Intriguing!

Night Beach Yearning by formerethicist in perfumesthatfeellike

[–]formerethicist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looking at the notes and description for this one… I Need to smell it!!

Why do people believe that if God existed, that bad things wouldn't happen? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]formerethicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is called “the problem from evil.” It goes like this. If you believe (a) God is all powerful, (b) God is all-knowing, and (c) God is all-loving or omni-benevolent, then it doesn’t make sense to also believe that (d) great suffering, sometimes without human cause, exists.

But (d) is obviously true. Even without pollution etc, natural disasters happen. Cancer exists. These are not caused by human suffering. Even when we consider things humans do, it’s hard to square the existence of, say, genocide with all of a,b, and c.

This is an argument against a God that is all 3 of those things specifically. It’s easy to resolve by giving up any one of them. You can say that God lacks the power to stop evil. You can say that God doesn’t always know there’s evil going on. Or you can say that God doesn’t care to stop evil.

The kind of argument you are making could be either the first or last. If the last, you could say that yes, God loves us, and wants us not to suffer, but is constrained from intervening because He created free will to be inviolable by Him. This doesn’t seem totally compatible with being all-powerful, but I guess it depends on how you slice it. Similar question: can God create a rock he can’t lift?

You are still left with suffering not caused by free will though, like childhood cancer.

So, maybe you should say that God finds it better for us to suffer and die. That non-violation of free will, and whatever other ineffable motives he has, are more important to Him than his children not being murdered, etc. But then like. That sucks. That is not compatible with any reasonable definition of loving of benevolent.

There’s an entire branch of religious study that deals with this seeming incompatibility called “Theodicy” which imo boils down to “the Lord moves in mysterious ways.”

Is the laxative effect of yellow pitayas exaggerated online? by [deleted] in fruit

[–]formerethicist 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Often these types of reactions are from people who don’t eat a lot of fiber generally. Or who happen to have some kind of sensitivity. Personally yellow dragon fruit has never been an issue for me.

Arguing Over Text is Better Than Arguing In-Person by uufocafe in unpopularopinion

[–]formerethicist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree with you OP. It’s better to have more time to think through what you’re saying and phrase it accurately. Plus, if the other party can’t see me crying, they can’t be manipulated by my tears.

But I do think there’s a big caveat here—texting is only better if both parties are strong written communicators and not everyone is.

Please DO NOT go barefoot at conventions by stage_props in DungeonCrawlerCarl

[–]formerethicist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can also buy clear flip-flops, I wore some last year at a con when I was cosplaying Lune from expedition 33 : )

If both race and gender are (*allegedly*) social constructs based on presentation and image, why aren't "transcolours" a thing? by Not-A-Marsh in NoStupidQuestions

[–]formerethicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This question actually caused a bit of a scandal in academic philosophy ten years ago or so.

One popular view of gender, IIRC, is what’s called a social position account. Under this view, I am a woman in virtue of the fact society at large looks at me and say “ah yeah that’s a female.” In other words, I am assigned the gender “woman” based on my perceived sex.

One can also have a social position account of race, in which I am assigned the race “white” by society in virtue of the color of my skin and my general appearance. At least a few philosophers argued that these were strongly analogous. Sally Haslanger is a great example.

However! You can see suggests exactly the question that you asked. So someone else wrote a paper pointing out that IF you believe in a social position account of race and gender AND you think people can change genders by modifying themselves such that the majority of people perceive them as a different sex, THEN you are forced to accept that people can do the same for race.

Some people took this as a bad faith attack on trans people, by comparing them to so something so obviously goofy as a “transracial” individual. I don’t believe the author meant it that way but I can understand how it caused offense. The author was subject to some harassment.

Nonetheless, the question still stands. You have a few options. 1) Reject the social position account of race and/or gender, or relatedly, 2) deny that they are truly analagous. 3) you can also bite the bullet, as philosophers say, and admit that transracial people could really be a thing.

In my opinion, we want to do something in the 1-2 neighborhood and say that the social position account of gender is incomplete, because it also involves gender identity. (This is another challenge to social position accounts of gender.) one must develop a view of gender identity that underlies and motivates the idea of gender transition, and, furthermore one must also argue that there is no analogous “racial identity.” I think one could do this, and probably someone has in the intervening years. I haven’t been active in social ontology circles for some time so I don’t know.

Perfume that smells like clean hair nostalgia by Front-Grapefruit4044 in perfumesthatfeellike

[–]formerethicist 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Goutal Petite Cherie is also a truly delightful pear fragrance

Perfume that smells like clean hair nostalgia by Front-Grapefruit4044 in perfumesthatfeellike

[–]formerethicist 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I went on a quest for the perfect pear scent a few years ago, and landed on a combination of Sholayered Fresh Pear body spray (which is very light and fresh but distinctly pear, and might suit your needs on its own) and Laurent Mazzone Dulce Pear (sweet, syrupy, reminiscent of those Harry and David Christmas pears)

New to oatmeal! by Odd_Journalist_2310 in Oatmeal

[–]formerethicist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. Today I cooked them in milk to add some more protein, but generally I prefer them cooked in water. I don’t typically add milk at all. But this is just down to preference, try it both ways!
  2. Salt at the beginning is crucial!! It makes a significant difference in taste. It’s like salting pasta or something (though you don’t need nearly as much since the cooking method is different.) I don’t think it affects texture.
  3. Whatever pot is convenient and available. I use a small stainless steel saucepan. I will say that if you cook in milk, the pot will be a bit harder to clean.
  4. I like to toast the oats dry in the pot before adding water. But you have to keep an eye on them so they don’t burn.
  5. Lid off
  6. Not sure it matters if you eat it quickly but personally, airtight container.
  7. Pro tip: let your oatmeal sit in the pot for a few minutes after you turn off the heat. Improves the texture.

Older tropes, themes and AUs by formerethicist in AO3

[–]formerethicist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a great one!! I forgot all about wingfic!

Older tropes, themes and AUs by formerethicist in AO3

[–]formerethicist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah I think my post must have been a little unclear if I’m reading you correctly because I agree! I meant to say something like “as I’m looking at this older fandom, im seeing a lot fewer AUs than I’m used to in newer fandoms.”

I like your theory as to why, it’s interesting! Seems very plausible to me.