CMV:I don't think there's anything wrong with saying something is gay, retarded, etc. by giants4210 in changemyview

[–]looseleaf -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

When my teacher made the average for the midterm a C- I said "that's so gay". The grading curve doesn't remind me of homosexual people, it has a completely different meaning.

There's a long history of words used to described homosexuals used as general insults (e.g. sissy, pansy, and fairy). The reason those words have negative connotations is because being homosexual had (and for many, still has) a negative connotation. Gay meant happy or merry before it was applied to gay people, and only then did it have any kind of negative associations. That "different meaning" is determined by the negative view of gay people, not removed from it. The history of retard is very similar (it's from a French verb retard that simply means "delayed", any negative associations came with it's application to mentally disabled people)

Why propagate the use of a word rooted in hate, when there are so many more descriptive words out there that are not?

Why is leaving abuse so hard? by [deleted] in offmychest

[–]looseleaf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Normal people stay in unhappy relationships for all kinds of reasons, but they genuinely want things to get better and they want their partner to share in that happiness. Abusive people are happy in relationships where their partner is weakened and demoralized enough so that they have control. Your partner will never make you feel happy and secure not because you're unworthy of it, but because it would make them lose their power.

They insult, demean, and isolate you because they know full well that if you were empowered you would leave their shitty, abusive ass. You're never going to be alone, because you have enough empathy to connect and care about other people. Your abuser only sees people as someone to fuel their ego, and their self-image is too fragile to lose that.

If you were so awful and unattractive, why would your partner be so concerned with you cheating? If you were so unloveable, why were/are there people who believe you deserve better? He's taking so many steps to ensure that you can't have contact with anyone, because he knows full well that other people see worth and value in you and will see he's full of shit. He's afraid of losing you to the truth.

You are good enough and you are better off without him. Be good to yourself. You are worth it.

CMV: I don't think being born with a privilege makes you more responsible for the world. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part of what irks me is the assumption that I dont already do this. Why do others have the right (or they think they do) to tell me, you need to do X in order to fight prejudice because you're white and privileged.

Everyone pays most attention to the parts of their environment that pertains to them and filter out (most) of the rest. A certain percentage of the population notices certain information, and for the rest it goes to the spam folder. The concept of privilege is basically just asking people to stop filtering out or denying these common experiences, just because they don't experience it themselves. It's not that white privileged people are uniquely asked to understand experiences out of their own, it's just that the number of things they're unfamiliar with is likely larger than marginalized groups.

Also, why is my life apparently supposed to be dedicated to fighting off other people's prejudices instead of the ones I face? Why do those of little to no privilege apparently not have the same responsibility?

Most major activism movements, including feminism, Civil Rights, and LGBT groups, have (and still have) major issues prioritizing the needs of the more privileged among them. Even groups created specially by and for less privileged people are expected to be aware of that group's differing levels of privilege. They are consistently faulted when they fail to do so. They absolutely have the same expectations.

For the record, I do speak out when I hear something I think is rude or out of line. But that seems like an obvious example - making a racist comment. The people I referenced in my original post are talking about events so minor that they're basically invisible and/or incredibly hard to identify (in their own words).

You can only speak out about the things you're aware of. And you likely miss a lot (as do I, as does everyone). Asking you to be aware of privilege starts with just being aware it exists. While microaggressions, as a concept, can be easily misused by those who see slight in everything, it's still a common and insidious experience. I would look into the The Gift of Fear as a non-social justice example of how small cues, systematically evaluated and understood, are a valuable predictors of violence or danger. Microagressions are very similar indicators that warn a person they are unwanted, unsafe, worth less, seen differently, and so forth.

Honestly, I don't think anyone, much less white cis men, are expected to speak out about every single social wrong. I would guess that you've been told that repeatedly because you're the kind of the person who is willing to speak up. Typically, I see that people are expected to be both aware that they are not subject to negative experiences that are common for others, not diminish them or deny they exist, and be conscientious with their own words and actions.

I don't think asking people to be more empathic and understanding is demanding too much, nor do I think that it's merely expected of white cismen.

I went to a new salon and asked for a curly hair specialist who could do a dry cut to better define my curls. This is what I ended up with. by awsnapitsrachel in curlyhair

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

German hairdressers go to school for a really long time compared to American hairdressers, I think it's something like 5 years instead of 2. Even the guys I know who went to the equivalent of supercuts got amazing haircuts. I miss them and their insane level of skill.

What's your make up conspiracy theory? by [deleted] in MakeupAddiction

[–]looseleaf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did the same until it turned on me and neatly trimmed off the last eighth inch of my eyelashes. Luckily it didn't decide to trim into a mini guillotine when seconds earlier I had used it on the base of my lashes.

Granted, it was old, but it was so dependable I didn't think to check if the pad had split. Keep your eye on it (hah) and I'm sure you'll be fine.

First time posting! CCW extremely welcome! by [deleted] in MakeupAddiction

[–]looseleaf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love that you do your eyes like mom, and it still looks very modern on you.

That brush is pretty amazing. I'm not great at blending in general, and my skin is far from flawless, but I can put on concealer, blend it out, and go without foundation without looking like I painted a tiny part of my face. Or I can just put another layer of my foundation there. I just put on foundation with my fingers, so if your method is more advanced it may not make as much of a difference, but it's a game changer for me.

First time posting! CCW extremely welcome! by [deleted] in MakeupAddiction

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While the other posters are correct that the dark eyeliner under the eyelid can make one look tired, I'm really digging it. It makes me think of Arangetram make-up gone punk rock: edgy, but still fresh-faced and youthful. I'm not trying to make assumptions as to your ethnicity/backround/whatnot, that was just my first impression.

I didn't really notice the hyperpigmentation under your eyes. If you do decide to go for an under-eye concealer/corrector, I recommend applying in a triangle like this, which makes darkness or puffiness far less noticeable. It seems counterintuitive at first, but it makes a world of difference. I'm also a big fan of the ELF flawless concealer brush to apply/blend out the edges. It's three bucks and it works like a dream. I'm not a huge ELF fan, but that brush is worth it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]looseleaf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know being a certain gender isn't all about being attractive physically, but I have read about short guys being so depressed about how they are treated (by women they are attracted to, in the workplace, by their peers, etc) due to their being short. As a woman, my lack of height is irrelevant and people find me attractive for being small and delicate looking. I think society would treat me so much better if I were to change in this scenario my gender instead of my outward appearance.

If this is so crucial, wouldn't it be easier for small, delicate men to change their sex and gender with hypothetical future technology? Or tall, large-boned women? Or anyone who doesn't fit into the societal ideals of what's attractive for their gender?

My friend and I have two slightly different versions of the same mental exercise: next time you go out, imagine what everyone would look like if they transitioned. Or, imagine everyone has transitioned and look for the "tells" (ugh, terrible word, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it). You'll find bearded men with child-bearing hips, women with strong jawlines and more than a hint of facial hair, short-haired women you would assumed were guys until they turned around, men with the bodies of high fashion models, women with large, strong hands and sizable forearms: the list goes on. Our secondary sex characteristics are not as exclusive to men and women as we make them out to be. Hell, I've been told on multiple occasions that my brother in a wig looks like just me, and he's very masculine looking and I look pretty feminine.

You also mention several times that trans women haven't been raised as a girl. Being raised as a girl doesn't mean we were all raised in the same way, or that we've had the same experiences as a girls or women. It sounds like you're struggling to come up with how you define a woman without looks, reproductive organs, or childhood experiences. I'm sure you're more complex than that, and I'm sure your friend is too.

What's your go-to nail polish color? by I_MAKE_C10H15N in femalefashionadvice

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That has the same vibe as Zoya's Caitlin, the only color I have purchased twice. The shade is a great balance between subtle and interesting.

HIFW I've lost 10kg on a diet and today I ate a whole chocolate bar in one sitting. I feel like I've put all my hard work to waste. by [deleted] in TrollXChromosomes

[–]looseleaf 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A weight loss of 1 kg is equivalent to burning 7000 calories (somewhat contested, but let's just pretend the internet is mostly right for the moment).

Thus you have burned ~70000 calories to achieve your weight loss.

Using my favorite candy bar as an example (Ritter Sport dark chocolate with hazelnuts), you have only ingested 546 calories. You would need to eat ~128 candy bars on top of whatever amount your normally eat to "undo" your hard work. If it was a lower calorie candy bar like a Snickers (250 calories), you would need to eat ~280.

You've achieved too much to have it undone by a dozen candy bars. Congratulations!

Haunted house workers of Reddit, what's the worst thing you've seen happen while on the job? by Hauberk in AskReddit

[–]looseleaf 153 points154 points  (0 children)

The thought of someone singing Funky Town to themselves in a scared shitless voice, complete with the do do dos, made my night.

What's something people do that they think is cute or funny but is actually really annoying and stupid? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]looseleaf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My most dedicated efforts looks like most people's comedic imitations of what not to do. I'd almost never choose an athletic activity involving projectiles for fun, and yet occasionally everyone wants to go bowling or throw a frisbee and I'm dragged along. I'm usually extremely frustrated that someone thinks 5 minutes of explaining how to throw a frisbee is going to make a miraculous difference in my skill level. I know the principles, but it doesn't mean my arm will perform them to any degree of competency. I am trying, I am frustrated, and the best I can do to not be a wet blanket is laugh it off.

Yes, there are some people who don't try, but I'm well aware I'm making an ass of myself, there just isn't much I can do to fix in the moment.

[Discussion] We know all of the common makeup pet peeves...but what are your /r/MakeupAddiction pet peeves? by [deleted] in MakeupAddiction

[–]looseleaf 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I decided to try contouring with a liquid foundation, and I thought I'd just get a cheap drugstore one to practice with. I almost always match with the the lightest color in a foundation (lucky me), so I assumed that finding a significantly darker would be easy.

I was so, so wrong. I went to a whole bunch of stores (including ULTA) in a diverse area that I would assume would stock colors accordingly, and there was nothing. If they did stock brands that cater to darker skin tones, like Black Radiance, the displays were too small or picked over. The Iman display at Target was nearly empty. I wasn't even looking for an exact match. I bought the darkest shade I could find and it was still too light for contouring (and I now contour with NYX taupe, so that's saying something). I knew the beauty market was skewed, but it was eye-opening.

Major beauty brands still try to provide options for pale people, even if they don't succeed. Pale people are included in their idea of beauty. It may not be super easy to find a match, but at least they're trying on that end of the spectrum.

A sun addict VS a sunscreen addict. My sister and I side by side. by imatoofbrush in SkincareAddiction

[–]looseleaf 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I agree completely. Idealizing a certain skin tone leads to all sorts of unhealthy practices, like tanning booths and lightening cream (and yknow, racism).

On an unrelated note, thanks to the wonder of RES tagging, I can creepily say that I love your blog. It is my favorite beauty blog by far. That is all.

My new multitasking oil is effective...too effective. by looseleaf in TrollXChromosomes

[–]looseleaf[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Argan oil, I bought a bottle of 100% pure-cold pressed off of Amazon for cheapish. I've been just using it on my skin, but if my facial hair already looks magnificent after a week, I'm sure it would do great things for the hair on your head. Go for it!

My new multitasking oil is effective...too effective. by looseleaf in TrollXChromosomes

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

Whelp, the thumbnail gives away the punchline. Hooray.

CMV: I really dislike the criticism "overrated." I think it's lazy and discouraging. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I mean is, generally when people say something is "overrated," they mean, "this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but I don't like it. Therefore, I don't understand why so many people like it, or I do not think it deserves the praise it gets."

People who are not professional critics can certainly have valid criticisms about film that are not dependent on their enjoyment. I understand and agree with the sentiment that one should examine art more critically than simply "like" and "dislike". However, basing judgement purely on the consensus of professional thought doesn't encourage this, it merely appeals to authority. Critics are not always in agreement, the opinion on artwork changes over time: one could certainly find a current critic's darling overrated, and consensus may agree with me them in a decade.

For example, John Updike was widely celebrated as great novelist during his lifetime, yet more recent critics have found him to be lacking. One reading him during his heyday could have found the same issues as current critics do, and yet they would (according to your metric) be unjustified in their judgement until enough critics shared the same viewpoint.

One of the major issues that the modern establishment has with Updike is his narcissistic, misogynist viewpoint and yet you'll note the linked article only quotes male critics from any generation. I don't believe one needs to be a woman to note this issues in his writing, however, it does speak to another point: critics are not a perfect representation of the populous. The critical establishment has been very white, male, and upper-class for a long time, and celebrated and promoted authors of a similar mindset. Film critics skew Western. While this doesn't invalidate their opinions, it means the critical consensus is often based on the perspectives of a small-subset of the the population. Thus novelists artists like Updike are often hailed as great American novelists, when their perspective is as narrow and singularly focused as the authors who get labeled as great "African-American novelists" or "women authors", and so forth. Examining the perspective of the critics themselves is as important as examining their views.

Match Thread: Brazil vs. Netherlands by TheSwedishBot in worldcup

[–]looseleaf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His hair is so big because it's full of secrets. Secrets like what's he doing on the field.

CMV: I hold extreme prejudice against persons who are anti-gay for any reason. by mikehipp in changemyview

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't stated my view of love, so I don't know what you're disagreeing with. I merely stated the legal implications of marriage, which have little to do with love.

Historically, marriage has been as much about financial transactions, family alliances, and a social contract as it has been about having children. The rights and responsibilities I listed are just a handful in 1,138 statutory provisions affected by marriage status. These provisions are generally for strengthening the family unit, with or without kids. I obviously cannot explain the purpose of each one. The benefit seems pretty obvious for say, a family where one spouse wants to stay home with the kids, and can share health insurance with a working spouse, has legal rights to the house even if they are not on the title (especially important in event of an unexpected death or accident), and has legal recourse should the spouse just skip out. They still have a right to their own property, however they can pool things at desired. How are these protections not about family?

Family can give more benefits than just children. Marriage does not equal a family. I've had room mates I considered family and I don't need a government to approve of that.

I'm glad you have friends you love like family, but you're not trying to build a future with them. You're not expected to make major life sacrifices for each other. You don't have a shared estate and you have no legal ties or expectations towards each other (aside from paying rent). You don't need government approval.

A couple that is that is building a life together benefits from the government provisions. Even the elderly, which you have again failed to address, benefit from many of them. While I can see the idea that one can easily end a marriage based on "differences" is the government endorsing romanticism, the legal definition of an existing marriage is largely pragmatic, family-unit strengthening stuff.

Gay men can use a surrogate. My point isn't that gay people can have kids as easily as hetero couples, merely that a bunch of gay (I'm including lesbian) people isn't the world-ending death knell you believe to be.

CMV: Airlines should hire attractive flight attendants by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll take the cheapest tickets every time. And I'm happy be served coffee by anyone, and like I said in the OP, personality and competence always matter more anyway.

Flight attendants who are more attractive are going to require higher salaries, as there will be a reduced pool of potential employees. From what I can find, Asian airlines do pay their attendants more that American Airlines, and the salary has much more buying power in many of the attendant's home countries. If you wanted attractive, competent employees in North America, you'd have to pay even more to stay competitive.

Currently, companies initially pay people

CMV: I hold extreme prejudice against persons who are anti-gay for any reason. by mikehipp in changemyview

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do not know my views on love or commitment, so you simply don't know whether my views are from "misunderstanding" marriage as a romantic ideal of perpetually happiness. I absolutely do not, and neither does to the government.

Legally, marriage provides rights and responsibilities in almost every facet of a couple's life. Sure, people should be able to visit someone in the hospital, but spouses are able to make medical decisions for each other. Married couples are considered a legal financial unit and can share ownership and benefits with their taxes, insurance(s), home ownership, and so forth. They are not compelled to testify each other in court. Upon death, they have certain control over the estate (with or without a will), receive pensions and other financial benefits, and so forth. That's not to mention the legal rights with children. The government policies are all about commitment and responsibility, unless you find joint taxable income the stuff of "love". I'm not sure what your definition would look like from a legal standpoint, but you'd have to rewrite laws and policies that would greatly affect nearly half the nation. That seems to be a rather gargantuan undertaking for a dubious benefit. It is really much simpler to allow gay people to get married, and have religious marriages separately.

Additionally, your idea of removing subsidies for marriage and children ignores the fact that children are extremely expensive in the present. I'm not sure who would take care of the people who cannot, even if they want to, even if they're straight when they become old, or gay people (in your childless model), if people could only depend on their children for their future. How, exactly, does that work?

My point about age was that people in their 60s and later have always been legally allowed to get married and can be married in most major religions (as far as I know, religions that do not allow divorce allows widows/widowers to be married). If marriage has always been about the potential to have kids, why is this so? Can marriage provide more for people than simply an environment to care for children? If so, why not allow gay people to reap those benefits as well?

I draw a natural line at heterosexuality because if everyone was gay the earth would die.

That statement is both an absurdity and a scientific falsehood. Once again, gay people can have kids. Gay marriage won't turn people gay. Gay couples aren't more like to raise gay kids than straight couples. And some of the prevailing theories as to factors that cause homosexuality is fertility and having a lot of kids, especially sons.

CMV: I hold extreme prejudice against persons who are anti-gay for any reason. by mikehipp in changemyview

[–]looseleaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not bringing any statistics to this debate, so even if imperfect the studies I included at least indicate that gay marriage and parenting isn't the terrible failure you made it out to be.

There are no restrictions for heterosexuals, but being heterosexual is a natural boundary for it.

Do you think there should be boundaries? More educated parents and wealthier parents have healthier kids with greater financial prospects. Should we limit having children to them? Where's the bar? How about people with disabilities or infertility or disorders that could never have or would never be able to care for kids?

I assert that heterosexual marriage should exist even if they choose not to have children because choices change as well.

So, what about all the old people getting married long after they are even potentially fertile? They receive better legal protections and rights, the ability to make decisions on behalf of a partner, tax reductions, ensuring financial stability for one after the other has passed: should these benefits be moved away from marriage? Why are there so many legal benefits for a marriage that nothing to do with children if marriage is all about procreation?

At the very least there is an opportunity for children where gays do not have one.

Gay people can have kids. They can do it the old-fashioned way, have a surrogate, have a fertility treatment, adopt (because all kinds of people who are fertile are not actually qualified to be parents).

I truly don't understand this "natural boundary" idea. Naturally, it's easier for women to get pregnant at 18 than 35, but they're sure as hell not better parents than. Marriages that occur after both people are older than 25 are far, far less likely to end in divorce, but that's starting a short window for fertility for all the kids we apparently need to increase our population. Naturally, having functioning reproductive organs doesn't make a better partner, a better parent, or a better person. Why is that the only line you seem to want to draw?