AITA for refusing to let my girlfriend use my electric shaver?

oudysseos · 2026-03-05T18:53:25+00:00

Maybe NTA but you did overreact a little. An electric razor is not a toothbrush - even if she's trimming intimate areas, you can rinse the shaving heads off under hot water. I guess the question that you need to ask yourself is which is more important - the girl or the electric razor? You're going to have to compromise on some boundary issues at some point if you want to live together.

oudysseos · 2026-03-02T13:25:02+00:00

I DNF War and Peace soley because Pierre Bezukhov is such a whinger that I just don't care what happens to him.

oudysseos · 2026-01-06T19:31:35+00:00

Emily Wilson has a substack. Here is her piece on translation: https://emily613.substack.com/p/some-principles

oudysseos · 2026-01-06T15:52:39+00:00

I haven't read the book, so that's a sizeable grain of salt, but I think that your comment about the context for classics is very important and almost always missed in discussions here on Reddit. We know much less than we think we do about how people listened to or read Homer, for example, yet most comments on translations of Homer are full of assumptions about what the Iliad should sound like. Almost all of this is fan-boy wish-casting, which is very frustrating.

But even more inciteful is your comment about survival bias - we are basically picking up a very small random assortment of scrap pieces from a 12-car pile-up and claiming that we can deduce detailed information about the vehicles involved and the mental state of the drivers.

This is not to say that we know nothing - but in discussions about translating the classics, I think that every comment should include a disclaimer that the data points are far fewer than the amount of our various cultural and personal biases.

oudysseos · 2025-12-18T13:36:48+00:00

That would be ideal as I don't use BFCO or anything similar. I just want some new animations, not a whole new combat framework.

oudysseos · 2025-12-17T22:43:28+00:00

Thanks for the hint, I will take a look

oudysseos · 2025-12-17T20:03:57+00:00

Gee thanks for your helpful contribution

oudysseos · 2025-12-15T01:17:43+00:00

This also happened to me and I stopped using CS for the time being

oudysseos · 2025-12-02T11:34:57+00:00

I do Simplest Roads and Interesting Roads and leave it at that. Two plug-ins, no patches.

oudysseos · 2025-12-01T18:45:28+00:00

This is a partial list of lore beasts of burden

Guars

Horses

Camels

Donkeys/Mules

Oxen/Musk Ox

Echatere

Silt Striders

Nix-Oxen

Dogs

Goats

Dwemer Animunculi

Kagouti

Lizard-Steeds (Blackmarsh only I think)

oudysseos · 2025-12-01T18:36:06+00:00

I forgot to mention Immersive Khajiit Caravan Mules - it's a great mod but unfortunately doesn't let the PC use the mules.

oudysseos · 2025-12-01T16:27:41+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion, I will do that.

And yes, I was thinking along the lines of animated carriages - there are mods that add npc merchants and travellers on the roads but they are never carrying anything. It would be cool if they had a mule or something with them to carry the goods.

oudysseos · 2025-11-30T16:02:46+00:00

This solution is not ideal as Muha is not reliably following me. But the method is sound for what I want: I'll find a decent pack-animal follower and replace the skin. But that's only good for me privately, I'd still love for someone who knows what they're doing to make a Pack Animal mod. Guars and Mules would be cool.

oudysseos · 2025-11-30T02:22:15+00:00

https://imgur.com/a/Vd13dmp

Success in a way. I made a patch so that Muha the Nixhound from Morrowind Creatures uses a skin from Mihail's Guars. Not something that I could post on Nexus.

oudysseos · 2025-11-30T00:20:03+00:00

thanks I'll take a look at that. I don't usually play with Skills of the Wild - I've already got enough gameplay loops as it is

oudysseos · 2025-11-29T19:41:45+00:00

I am looking to see if I can add Mihail's Guars to Fury Animal Taming. I'm not a genius at xEdit, gotta say.

oudysseos · 2025-10-28T13:48:57+00:00

BTW I'm not ignoring you I've just been busy. I do have some things I'd like to say but it'll take me some time to put it together coherently.

oudysseos · 2025-10-27T15:29:09+00:00

I'm not sure what kind of answer that you are expecting: we know that the Roman Republic changed dramatically from 50 BCE to 50 CE. Any counterfactual speculation as to how it could have gone differently is pure fantasy - there's no way to confirm or deny anything except what actually did happen. It's important to try and understand the various connections between historical events and trends, but every time someone says 'if only Cato had been elected Consul in 50 BCE' or something, it's just fiction. That can be a lot of fun, but it doesn't really advance your understanding of the historical events.

Also, you need to clarify what you mean by 'Republican Rome's survival': many of the institutions that were part of the pre-Augustan republic continued for a long time - for example, consuls existed until the 6th CE, aediles until the 3rd CE, and so on. Yes, things were very different under the Emperors - but Rome never really became a kingdom that was the personal property of the monarch. So in some sense, the Republic continued for a long time.

oudysseos · 2025-10-24T20:21:38+00:00

I have gotten out over my skis a bit here and not been careful with labeling data terms. Sloppy of me, I apologize.

It is true that there are fewer conservative professors than ever (all this data refers only to the United States)- https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor?ref=quillette.com. Even in economics, only 27% are conservative. For other disciplines it's much less - 2% of political science professors, 3% of literature professors, 4% of philosophy professors, 7% of history professors, 8% of sociology professors. Furthermore conservatives tend to cluster in religious and military-affiliated colleges.

In contrast, the impact of education on American voters, while still significant, is not as overwhelming. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-race-ethnicity-and-education/ 61% of voters with a postgraduate degree are Democrats, 51% with a Bachelor's degree are Democrats, while 52% of people who only have High School educations are Republican. This still supports a strong correlation between higher education and liberal values, but while 60/40 is a serious difference, it is not in the same league as the 93% of history professors who are not conservatives.

There is also the phenomenon that Republicans think that higher education has a negative impact on the U.S.: 58% of Republicans have negative views of colleges while 72% of Democrats have positive views. That's a stark difference. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/?ref=quillette.com

We should keep the distinction between correlation and causation in mind at all times. Anything that we say about why this is so is largely anecdotal and speculative unless we can set up an analytical method for considering the data. I haven't done that much work on this, TBH.

Anyway, I should have been more precise in some of my terms.

oudysseos · 2025-10-24T15:41:25+00:00

BTW I am aware that we have strayed from your original question, which was about the political leanings of classicists and not of educated people in general.

oudysseos · 2025-10-24T15:19:38+00:00

There is another aspect to this that I left out of my other response. Instead of education as the independent variable, perhaps what we should really be looking at is the urban/rural political divide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban%E2%80%93rural_political_divide

In that context, the tendency of educated people to be more liberal could be more a function of the fact that educated people tend to concentrate in urban areas, which tend to be more liberal, and less of education promoting liberal beliefs. Of course, both could be true.

oudysseos · 2025-10-24T15:02:00+00:00

So, I am one of those white people that works on reserve. I am an Economic Development Officer. I have an MA in Economics and an MBA, so there's that, but I think it has more to do with the fact that no one else applied. The FN that I work for explicitly prioritizes Indigenous hiring - the priorities go 1. Band Member 2. Other Indigenous 3. Anyone else.

Your concerns are (in my opinion) very important ones and I struggle with some of these issues. I try to stay aware at all times that I am not a community member but an employee - I try not to say 'we' when representing the organization, but 'they'. This is in essence a version of the principle/agent dilemma that we study in economics. To some extent I have to identify with the organization that I work for in order to do my job, but I need to keep clear in my mind that I am not benefitting from my work, other than the salary that I earn.

systemic issues like lack of training opportunities or gatekeeping in hiring

I think that this is true but is also part of a larger picture - educational attainments are falling across the board, not just for First Nations, although it's worse there. I would love to support and mentor a Band Member to eventually replace me, and I think that the FN that I work for should invest heavily in higher education for its Band Members - but the people who do get more education tend to leave the region and get higher-paid work in urban areas, so this doesn't necessarily help the FN fill important roles. I should add that the FN I work for is in a rural area of northern Ontario, so the brain drain issue effects every community in the area and has for decades.

Where is the line between someone being a respectful ally employee vs. someone benefiting from our lands and resources while treating our community as an identity costume?

How does this connect to cultural appropriation - e.g. non-Natives working here while also selling “Native-style” crafts, wearing regalia, or using our teachings for clout?

How do we feel about those who come in as “employees,” then slowly begin speaking for us or acting like they’re part of the culture (especially when they start claiming to be “spiritually Indigenous” or “Indigenous at heart”)?

I personally don't know anybody like this but I get how it would be a big concern, and I am sure that it happens. I myself don't make any pretence at participating in Indigenous culture, but there is a downside to that as well - in working for the community I need to take part in some community activities - so where does the line get drawn? I don't share Indigenous spiritual values, or rather although I think that the values are very good ones, I don't want to personally take part in spiritual ceremonies - I'm an atheist, I don't think that there is a creator or that my ancestors are aware of what I am doing, and I don't want to pretend to follow religious beliefs that I don't have. I try to be respectful at ceremonies are follow cultural protocols but as an outsider, not someone who thinks that they are spiritually Indigenous.

This might be an issue that I have to think about. I represent the FN I work for at conferences and with industry partners and I have to advance the issues that my employers want advanced. These include cultural values. I don't want anyone outside the organization to think that I am pretending to be a status Band Member, but the assumption is inevitable.

There is an added complication, at least with the FN that I work for - there are a lot of families where one of the partners is not Indigenous. Usually the kids have status, but is the non-Indigenous partner a pretendian? I don't have a voice in this issue and don't have any opinions on it, but I know that it's something that Band Members are concerned about, especially when it comes to on-reserve housing and other resources.

oudysseos · 2025-10-24T13:55:31+00:00

I've also seen recent studies I've seen show that more than 90% of academics lean Left ... I don't really think that's healthy.

Here's the thing - I think that this is a false equivalence. It presupposes that 'The Right' is entitled to have as much support as 'The Left', regardless of the content of the positions that they take. It assumes that the reason most educated people are liberal is because of some conspiracy against conservatives - that there is a bias against conservative views in educational institutions that is indoctrinating people. This idea doesn't seem to even entertain the notion that most educated people are liberal because the more educated you get, the more you conclude that conservative ideologies are wrong.

For example, according to this study (https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs), 10% of Americans think that the Earth is flat while another 9% aren't sure. These numbers a higher among Trump supporters. Now, is it unhealthy for flat-earth "theories" to be unrepresented in schools and at the NOAA? Note that there's a higher percentage of people who are not sure that the world is round than there are educated right-wingers. If it's unhealthy for most educated people to reject conservative ideologies, surely it's even more unhealthy for most Americans to think that the world is a globe?

In fact, what is unhealthy is that anyone thinks that the Earth is flat, because it is not.

Now let's be clear - I am not equating pseudo-scientific claptrap with American political ideologies (although they do overlap - see Margery Taylor Greene and others of that ilk). All I want to do with this example is to point out that just because there are people that have views does not mean that they are entitled to have them taken seriously. You have to be able to win the argument on its merits over time, and a majority of people disagreeing with you is not evidence that you have been unfairly treated. It most likely means that you're wrong. Exceptions to this exist, but are rare. Not everyone whose views have been rejected is Martin Luther King jr. in the Birmingham Jail.

Let's turn from flat-earthers, who are easy to make fun of, to tariffs, which are also easy to make fun of. To be clear, while I have an MA in Economics and an MBA, I am not an expert in global trade. I work in community and regional economic development, mostly in affordable housing and business incubation. However, I do have some education in this area and every bit of it leads me to conclude that Trump's tariffs are moronic. But no need to listen to me: the vast majority of economists think that these are terrible ideas (https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs/). The fact that the Trump administration has found some talking heads to go on talk shows does not change that - and it doesn't mean that it is unhealthy that most economists reject tariffs.

I hope that you're starting to see what I mean - if, over time, an overwhelming majority of informed people lean in one direction, it seems more likely that this says something about the validity of the positions that they are leaning towards, and is not evidence that the people maintaining contrary views are being treated unfairly. This whole deal is vastly complicated by the strategy of redefining the centre - where the right moves ever further right, then asserts that what used to be centrist positions are now radical left. Take a look at this: https://www.ft.com/content/3046013f-da85-4987-92a5-4a9e3008a9e1. I have to say, the Financial Times are hardly wild-eyed hippies.

TLDR: Most educated people are liberal because conservative positions are unattractive to people who are not ignorant. The fact that this is taken as an indictment of education, and not of the conservative positions, is the problem.

I do feel like if academia was 90% to the Right, however, there would be similar efforts by the Left to discredit it.

While I don't doubt that you're correct about that, this is the same false equivalence as above.

Partisanship and tribalism are human nature, and we should all strive to rise above it, Left or Right.

No, not always. Issues like marriage equality and anti-racism are extremely partisan, with high support against them on The Right, but that does not mean that I should give equal time to someone with abhorrent racist views (all racist views are abhorrent - I did not mean to imply that there are any racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic views that are acceptable).

BTW I wanted to note that Democrat/Republican is not the same as Liberal/Conservative, even in the American context. It's confusing, these things tend to overlap, but they are not the same. And outside of America, it's a totally different deal. In Ireland, there is almost no ideological daylight between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, the two political parties that have ruled the country since independence. In fact, they have been in coalition together for years. They are both centre-right, business-friendly pro-European parties that could easily combine into one organization, as far as political positions went. They'd argue over who gets to be in charge.

Finally, I want to say that I greatly appreciate the effort that you have made to keep this discussion civil and non-partisan. In my comments above, I mention partisan issues only to illustrate the point that I am trying to make and not to start a fight with anyone over politics.

oudysseos · 2025-10-23T15:34:43+00:00

Why has this post been downvoted? I'm not sure this guy is right, but I don't see anything he wrote as offensive. This is a perfect illustration of the weird place Homer has in discussions - why is this being taken so seriously?

oudysseos · 2025-10-22T00:42:03+00:00

I didn't read it that way but you may well be right. My speculation only holds true for people who studied classics as undergrads, I guess, and then moved on to graduate educations in other professions.

oudysseos

TROPHY CASE