@Pigeon's banner p

Pigeon

coo coo

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:48:43 UTC

				

User ID: 237

Pigeon

coo coo

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:48:43 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 237

Most of that link looks dreadful to me.

Are there any vegetables you‘ve had in the past that you liked and would like to replicate?

I'll agree...unless you're 400 pounds and gaining. I knew a woman that had a catastrophic health emergency in her late 20s; she was around 300 pounds. Another friend's mom is 450 and walking with a cane in her early fifties; she's a sprained ankle away from being bedbound.

I don’t think people really understand this well. People can be heavy enough that tripping and landing on your feet can be cause for amputation.

You realise that what you’re saying is not really much of a response to @raggedy_anthem, right?

She’s noting (via anecdote) that male humans and female humans, in fact, act qualitatively differently and are more accurately modeled separately, notwithstanding how “masculine” a woman is or “feminine” a man is.

You’re essentially replying “we need to treat individuals on a person-by-person basis” and nothing else (even defaulting to the standard modeling of “man” and “woman!”), which…doesn’t relate to her statement at all except in a bullshit non-answer way that conveniently sidesteps any actual response to her point.

(Edit: I appreciate that there are passages that have substance — that “playing both sides” can garner an advantage, for example. But I don’t think that changes the gist of my comment — from my perspective, you didn’t actually respond to the point of the comment you were replying to in favour of superficially analyzing the anecdote.)

(I swear, right when I'm trying to tone down on my pathological hedging and over-explaining I run into a situation where I apparently needed to clarify some more...)

For what it was worth, I thought it was obvious what you meant.

There is that, but the ethnic Tai (of which the Thailand-majority Thai are part) are also relatively new to the region compared to other austronesian groups in Southeast Asia, having settled in southern China in prehistory rather than in Southeast Asia directly. The Tai had a period of massive migration out of southern China in the late first millennium CE as Chinese dynasties, especially the Tang, consolidated and integrated its southern provinces into the empire.

There are still ethnic Tai in China that are still genetically and culturally very similar iirc, and they look much the same as well.


That isn’t to discount immigration from China into Thailand and southeast China in general, as is well known for the latter half of the second millennium; one of their kings and national heroes was half-Chinese!

Given the well-known history of Indianization of SEA states in the early first millennium and long-standing contact between SEA and the subcontinent, I think the genetic evidence is less likely due to a conquest than just results of the above.

I don’t think that’s *always accurate. Swyer’s syndrome women have uteruses and normal external genitalia, they just have nonfunctional gonads (eg ovaries, or testes). They can get pregnant via egg donation but are otherwise infertile.

Weren't they once conquered by some of the more entrepreneurial South Indian kings? (🇮🇳 Jai Hind!)

Are you talking about the Chola campaigns in Southeast Asia? I don’t think the Cholas touched Thailand then; they even had the Khmer, who controlled the relevant parts of modern-day Thailand at the time, as allies.

I don’t think Thailand was ever conquered by an Indian kingdom. Indianized kingdoms, yeah (that describes much of Southeast Asia), but not Indian ones.

Firstly, I was taken aback by how fair Thai people tend to be. I thought they'd be swarthier, akin to Malaysians or Indonesians, but quite a large fraction could easily pass as Caucasian if not for their facial features. The ones who are really tanned seem to be people who work out under the sun, having skin tones I expect.

This shouldn’t be too surprising, given that the Tai people were driven from southern China by the Chinese only a thousand and some years ago.

What vegetables are you having, exactly?

I agree with the other comment about the best and easiest way to make generic leafy greens tasting good being stir-frying them, with some shallots/scallions/ginger/garlic (not necessarily all of them at once) and salt, maybe some oyster sauce. The Cantonese would blanch it very briefly before stir-frying to preserve colour and improve texture, but it’s not necessary if you don’t want to wash another pot. Conversely, just blanching them works for a lot of Chinese vegetables as well, if the vegetables themselves are fresh enough. Try to pick smaller specimens of e.g. choi sum or bok choi; the leafy greens I find in the west tend to be very overgrown, and as a result taste worse (less taste overall, and more bitter than average), less crunchy, and much more stringy and fibrous than in indigenous Chinese cooking.

But it would help to know which vegetables you’re actually using. None of the above is very useful if you’re trying to eat pumpkin.

The food sucks. The housing sucks. The culture sucks. Frankly, the people suck too. The best stuff is a bad imitation of western culture.

I think these are worth elaboration. It’s not an obvious given.

A very conscientious, literate hawk

What on earth would be the scientific consensus around “animals are below humans” and “I eat meat, I don’t like eating lentils and kale” and “let’s find 8 earths to feed meat to humans”? Those are value judgements, not scientific theories and facts.

This is clearly using “scientific consensus” as intimidation and consensus-building, even if there’s a weak case for “if animals were on par with humans the original replier would consider otherwise”. A weak case that doesn’t even begin to approach your own rhetoric!

I suspect @Amadan‘s ”what should we do about it?“ is more of a ”well, how exactly are we supposed to convince people to stop digging?“, which doesn‘t seem out of line with what you’re saying.

How much of it is due to taking someone else’s perfectly functional uterus? I do wonder how it would be if we could “grow” a womb with the transwoman‘s DNA (replacing the Y with X somewhere somehow), would that be less ick.

Or just a full body transplant? Grow a body with the appropriate chromosomal configuration — again, replacing the appropriate sex chromosome from the original person — but somehow leave out the brain, then transplant the trans brain into the new body.

(I don’t think it would work out very well embryologically or in terms of surgery to reconnect all the nerves, but thought-experiment wise…)

Yeah, but we can recognise what is being referenced as being unhelpful hyperbole, right?

people in this thread comparing their child transitioning to death

Honestly, that raises a good question - they were in the normal riots in the last few years (some even went overseas to try to export BLM!), and do some sort of community organisation/support. A few are union organisers; the rest live a pretty bohemian lifestyle. I don‘t think they actually risk anything, given how limp-wristed state response to riots have been, and honestly it‘s difficult to consider the recent riots as being in service of classical Marxism.

But that applies even more to the Hitler-did-nothing-wrong Nazis — really, how many of the far-right are endangering themselves to spread the gospel of (neo-)Nazism, versus the ones who are in it because they think it‘s edgy, or because they have some vague grievance towards progressive politics and it was the easiest thing to latch on to? The lack of mind-reading goes both ways.

And that raises another point — isn‘t it pretty telling that people can get to say shit like “Mao is just misunderstood” and “the Great Leap Forward was the US’s fault for starving China” without getting overwhelming pushback (like someone would if they tried to justify the Holocaust, say) and making them reconsider?

I mean, I agree with you in that sense; but I still think that both the absolute and the relative number of people who are legitimately, unironically tankies in the left is still greater than bona fide Hitler-did-nothing-wrong neonazi types in the right. That the establishment doesn’t feel threatened by them doesn’t affect the sincerity of the belief.

My suspicion is that I’m undercounting actual neo-Nazis, but I think my intuition that there are a lot more actual tankies than literal neo-Nazis is more accurate than not, especially in the urban West.

(This is different outside of the West, of course. Though Hitler endorsement is also probably less useful as a signifier of far-rightness outside of the West.)

Firstly, the claim was this:

I see a lot more rightists defending Hitler than I do leftists defending Stalin and Mao.

Secondly, that doesn’t hold nearly as well when I hear people say that Mao was “misunderstood”, mm? I think that goes beyond “harmless pastime”.

That’s fair.

Conversely, my anecdotal experience is that something like a quarter to a third of the actual far-leftists I know will be like “Lenin/Stalin/Mao had the right idea, just went too far/did some things wrong”, “Great Leap Forward is capitalist propaganda”, “Communists would have succeeded and created utopia on Earth if it was not for evil capitalists sabotaging them”, etc. Usually not “everything they did was right”, but absolutely bending over backwards to excuse any “mistake” they made. I’ve heard someone claim that the Great Leap Forward was actually the US’s fault!

I have never seen anyone in real life defend Hitler, like, ever. Not even outside of the West where it’s less of a taboo.

Mainly violin, though I haven’t even touched that for a long time.

I prefer playing in chamber music environments — used to do a piano trio in high school — but opportunities for these are difficult to find nowadays with friends if I just want to do it for fun…

Surely 1% is overselling the effort here to learn a pop song on piano when a Rachmaninov piece can take months to learn, even if we’re not talking about rach 3!

Now, someone might say "but Stalin and Mao...". Yes, they are popular with tankies but very few wokists go around trying to defend Stalin and Mao. When it comes to the far right and Hitler, on the other hand...

I’m not sure that’s true. Barely anyone even on the far-right defends Hitler.

On the other hand, it’s fairly common to find who excuse, or are apologetics for, the USSR and pre-Deng China — more often for Mao and Lenin, perhaps less often for Stalin, but surely still more than for Hitler!

What exactly happened then for libertarians?