An open thread for Memorial Day. A day for Americans to remember those who have given their lives for their country.
And a day for a man who’s never sacrificed anything in his life to make a buffoon of himself at Arlington National Cemetery.
"Then they'll play the National Anthem. That part's easy. Just stand still."
"Got it."
pic.twitter.com/9oNjcXvQOW— shauna (@goldengateblond) May 29, 2017
@Alan Robertshaw
I cut it into eight first, a proper Pizza O’ Eight. So eight slices. In one sitting. I love me <3
@ ignoresandra
I usually cut one small slice, then eat the other bit.
Off topic, but this is too good not to share.
This Tweet About Clinton and Lepen Reveals the Problem with People who Believe Feminism is Just About Supporting All Women
“In the worldview of Assange’s tweet, Clinton and Le Pen are pretty much interchangeable. That idea makes no sense to anyone who thinks that a woman has individual worth created by her values, expertise, skills, or ideas — but it makes perfect sense if you believe that women are nothing, that no woman has anything to offer the world except her vague, diffuse “femaleness,” and thus, any one should be as good as the other. “
“These pundits who pull this move always frame it as an attempted “gotcha” — “Surely if you were a REAL feminist, you’d back a woman with a blatant racist agenda, right? If you were a REAL feminist, you’d hold the act of supporting an individual woman above working to get greater rights and freedoms for the vast majority of women, right? REAL feminism is just about being obsessed with supporting literally every single woman, right?” What this kind of thinking misses, of course, is that feminism has nothing to do with women blindly supporting other women — a mistake you can only make when you believe that no woman ever does anything genuinely meriting support, and that unilateral support in the media is the only right a woman could possibly be missing.
Because it’s impossible to miss that this “supporting all women” rhetoric always focuses on supporting women who are already powerful, as Wright notes — the “all women” we’re supposed to be focused on lifting up are never poor women, or Muslim women, or trans women, or disabled women. They’re women who already have massive cultural capital — yet for some reason, giving them a soapbox to oppress many other women is supposed to be a “feminist act” in a way that standing up for women with less power than you somehow isn’t. “
THIS THIS THIS.
Off topic, but this is too good not to share. And because I suck at entering emails.
This Tweet About Clinton and Lepen Reveals the Problem with People who Believe Feminism is Just About Supporting All Women
“In the worldview of Assange’s tweet, Clinton and Le Pen are pretty much interchangeable. That idea makes no sense to anyone who thinks that a woman has individual worth created by her values, expertise, skills, or ideas — but it makes perfect sense if you believe that women are nothing, that no woman has anything to offer the world except her vague, diffuse “femaleness,” and thus, any one should be as good as the other. “
“These pundits who pull this move always frame it as an attempted “gotcha” — “Surely if you were a REAL feminist, you’d back a woman with a blatant racist agenda, right? If you were a REAL feminist, you’d hold the act of supporting an individual woman above working to get greater rights and freedoms for the vast majority of women, right? REAL feminism is just about being obsessed with supporting literally every single woman, right?” What this kind of thinking misses, of course, is that feminism has nothing to do with women blindly supporting other women — a mistake you can only make when you believe that no woman ever does anything genuinely meriting support, and that unilateral support in the media is the only right a woman could possibly be missing.
Because it’s impossible to miss that this “supporting all women” rhetoric always focuses on supporting women who are already powerful, as Wright notes — the “all women” we’re supposed to be focused on lifting up are never poor women, or Muslim women, or trans women, or disabled women. They’re women who already have massive cultural capital — yet for some reason, giving them a soapbox to oppress many other women is supposed to be a “feminist act” in a way that standing up for women with less power than you somehow isn’t.”
THIS THIS THIS.
re: the vidya game petition – It’s real, alright; I have an account (if you call it that) with Change.org and my name and a one-click button appeared on it when I clicked the link. :/ Also, this isn’t the first dodgy petition I’ve seen there; I read them carefully nowadays.
Sandra said
This is a bugbear of mine. I mean, I get not wanting to offend someone who cooked something for you, but people should be able to say “I don’t like/can’t eat” x thing and not automatically be found guilty of rudeness. I always try to find out what people like/don’t like/can’t have before I cook for them.
I’m not fond of making children eat things they don’t want to, either. Husbeast will do this with his kid when they come to visit and I always give him the stinkeye when he does.
Francesca – You sound like best Black Goddess-Empress to me!
@mrex
The same types try to frame tolerance as an absolute. If you don’t tolerate their hate, then your tolerance is all a sham/lie.
Morocco and the Mediterranean, certainly. IIRC, it was recently found from DNA evidence that the common mice of Madeira originate from Norway. Apparently, Norse sailors used the island occasionally as a hideout.
(Madeira was unihabited and generally ignored but probably not entirely unknown until the early 15th century Portuguese colonization.)
@Hambeast-sama
This is quality parenting right here on your part. Forcing kids to do things almost never ends well.
Thank you! I am grateful for your vote of confidence, because I am plagued with doubts about my ability. I always feel like I’m not very good at my job of being the melanin-infused super-being Hoteps say we are, so this means a lot to me.
Yeah, I get attitude sometimes from people who think everyone who eats gluten free is a fad dieter who doesn’t understand gluten (and I blame Jimmy Kimmel in large part for that). I’ll turn down the ice cream because it’s a brand I have researched that doesn’t take allergy precautions between batches, so I know it’s not safe, and the response I’ll get is, “but ice cream doesn’t have gluten!” I usually respond with, “doesn’t it?” which prompts them to start thinking about it, and then I mention flavors like cookies and cream and I talk about proper cleaning procedures between batches and they start to understand. That’s with people who want me to participate and enjoy myself, so they’re willing to listen.
And then there are people who get upset when they see ham labeled as gluten free. Like, they seriously get angry that there’s a label that tells me this is safe to eat. Those people won’t listen even when I explain that a lot of meats, but especially pork/ham products, will include fillers, broth (most broth includes wheat), or preservatives that include wheat, barley, or rye, and sometimes those aren’t even listed on the ingredients, are called something you wouldn’t associate with grains (I’m looking at you, cellulose powder), or it’s just listed as “natural flavorings”. But those people just want to be angry at fad diets so they don’t want to hear the logic, they just want to stay angry.
The thing is, they think they know more than I do, but clearly they don’t. I need to know this because it will make me very sick if I have any. When I’m confronted with conflicting information I research it until I understand it better. They want to feel superior based on some small amount of information they picked up once that they never expanded on or questioned, so when they’re presented with conflicting information they shut down and won’t listen because it would chip away at that superiority if they didn’t actually know more.
I feel for you. I have no intolerances (though I feel ill if I have a lot of caffeine), but know a lot about the anti gluten fad simply because I see it around a lot. These precious ‘clean eaters’ have made a lot of people desensitised to anyone with a genuine gluten intolerance, which of course makes it more likely that they will not closely scrutinise food thinking it doesn’t REALLY matter.
Of course for people like you it really does.
If I were gluten intolerant I would find it very frustrating to hear these people go on without diagnosis about how they cannot eat gluten. Obviously if you don’t WANT to eat a certain thing it is your choice, but it should be acknowledged that it is a preference, not a necessity.
@Ellesar
Diagnosis is actually extremely hard to get, so that’s not really the problem. I’ve had symptoms since I was about 10, didn’t even think of trying gluten free until a doctor said “maybe it’s celiac” when I was explaining why I think I have Hashimoto’s (turns out I was right about that), but she wouldn’t order any diagnostic tests or do anything but prescribe me Welbutrin (which made me better for a short time, then progressively worse), and actually said, “If you feel better when you don’t eat wheat, then don’t eat wheat. What’s the problem?” when I tried to press for a diagnosis. So diagnosis isn’t realistic for everyone.
Really the problem is with people who think that a person’s choice of what they eat is less valid because it’s a choice and/or assume they know what’s best for the person and sneak it in.
kupo: a friend of mine who went through this (and is a biologist) indicated that the tests for celiac are pretty poor. If it says you have celiac, you probably do, but maybe not. If it says you don’t, well, maybe you do, maybe you don’t. So it’s not the most useful thing in the world to get tested.
In her case it turned out to be Lyme’s, actually. Another disease that is hard to diagnose.
@numerobis
I’m aware of the false positives and false negatives, but, for example, genetic testing could tell you definitively that you don’t have it, and then you have eliminated a possibility. Plus you can prep for a biopsy by eating a certain amount of it leading up to the procedure (which is why I’m not planning on getting it done, as now that I’ve gone without for so long, when I have purposely tried it to verify I have a reaction, the reaction is too painful, and I have a high pain threshold). And since Hashimoto’s can have similar reactions to gluten it’s likely that’s what’s causing my reactions.
Anyway, my point was diagnosis is not always possible, whether because of the poor tools or because of poor doctors (and mine was terrible – she laughed at me and dismissed my symptoms because I had written a list of them so I wouldn’t forget to mention any of them – I’m pretty sure she assumed I had just gone on webmd and wrote a list of symptoms I found rather than realizing that when you live with pain for decades you stop thinking about it anymore).
I have a pretty strong feeling that typical left-wing “violent protesters” are brocialist types who think the revolution is just around the corner (or they’re involved with the RCP or Trotskyists).
Those sorts of tactics don’t work. They make bigots look like they’re victims and the United States is nowhere near a revolutionary situation (and revolutionary armed struggle and Leninism have never produced good results, anywhere, ever). Find a positive way to get involved in creating change you want in society.
(End random rant)
Hambeast, disorderly she-tornado and breaker of windows
I think Husbeast has the right idea – but doesn’t think through how you can implement the strategy when the kid isn’t with you week in week out.
The strategy he thinks he’s using is familiarisation. The rule in our family is that kids have to, absolutely must, try one fork/spoonful of a food they’re reluctant to eat. Having done that, they’re at liberty to leave the rest while they eat the stuff they do like/accept. The idea is that you do this with a new food up to 15, maybe 20, times and most kids will have got used to it. If they still refuse it, it won’t be served from then on.
Unless Husbeast is doing this as part of a cooperative project with the parent/family the child spends most of their time with, it’s not very likely to succeed. As far as I know, the best way to do this on an occasional basis is to get the kid to cook or help with preparing the meal, or part of it, themselves.
@mildlymagnificient
yeah, it’s a good idea to make sure kids eat a variety of foods. It’s healthier and helps broaden their horizons. I totally agree with getting kids to help in the kitchen, it has so many benefits and is a really fun way to spend time with them.
I have cousins who, because their mom does/did all the cooking, mostly eat out or eat prepackaged food. I’m certain if they weren’t boys they would have been made to learn at some point. Another, more subtle example of how toxic masculinity can hurt men, I guess.
I know there’s other people on the spectrum who simply can’t bring themselves to eat certain foods, I’m really fortunate that I don’t have prominent eating issues. I love food in all its forms and cultures (heh yogurt)
@mm
“As far as I know, the best way to do this on an occasional basis is to get the kid to cook or help with preparing the meal, or part of it, themselves.”
Yeah, this really works. Beyond this, getting kids involved in gardening, and meal planning, and grocery shopping, helps as well. A lot of fussy eating is about control, partially because kids want control, and partially because kids have a very sensitive sense of texture and taste compared to adults. They know when something tastes gross, so it’s TERRIBLE when an adult chooses it. But if THEY choose to eat something gross, well watch them eat poisonous shit that even birds find unpalatable.
Forcing them to eat just sets up a power struggle. Kids may hate outside control, but they usually do want to practice being adults.
That and I’m also a big fan of making ONE meal, and letting them go hungry if they don’t want to eat it. (Or if they don’t want to make a reasonably healthy meal and clean up for themselves if they’re older). And no dessert/snacks until the next meal obviously. I’m not convinced that an occasional empty belly does any lasting psychological harm, but I’m not sure I’d want to risk upsetting the EX in a custody situation either.
@Victoria
Pretty much all the adult fussy eaters I know are men. I think some of this is due to girls wanting to be thin and “pretty” and therefore survive on veggies, but I think some of this is boys seem to suffer from more control issues with their mom as they get older. IMO.
mildlymagnificent said
No, it’s not cooperative, it’s what his parents made him do. Also, he thinks Kidbeast’s mom is a bad cook because she likes things rather bland.
Personally, I’d prefer it if Kidbeast was able enjoy their time here. It’s hard because there aren’t a lot of kids their age around and their mom is absolutely against allowing them to even walk to the park* unaccompanied. Kidbeast is going on 15, btw. When here, they spend most of the day on the xbox with their friends back home.
*not that far and we live in one of the safest cities in the nation.
I hate to be that “kids these days!” or more accurately “parents these days!” person, but I find it really sad that kids aren’t allowed much independence anymore. I walked to school and the park and the lake by myself or with friends all the time. I don’t remember what age I started this exactly. Probably 9 or 10? It’s really not that big of a deal. But it seems like that’s getting less common now. I think it’s better to start doing things on your own young. Bit by bit. So that you’re not thrown into adulthood without having any idea how to take care of yourself.
I know parents are afraid of predators, but you can educate kids about staying safe. I had an educational board game about that very subject. And most abductions and child abuse aren’t by strangers anyway.
Since I’m not a parent, maybe I shouldn’t be talking. What do I know? But I can’t help it. I just really think it’s a bad to overly shelter kids.
I remember thinking my parents were too strict but looking back, they weren’t so bad. I can’t even imagine not being to walk a short distance unsupervised at age 14. I’d have been just miserable.
wwth – IKR? We were walking to the convenience store and park in groups at the age of 8 or 9. I was going alone by age 10. Nowadays, kids that do that are called feral and parents get CPS called on them for allowing it.
Kids here don’t even walk to school on their own! Schools around here have to be designed with dedicated drop-off/pick-up lanes for parents to drive kids to school and back. I would get a ride if it was raining, so because I grew up in SoCal, not too often! It was hoofing it or biking for me.
Getting back to Kidbeast, they seem to think this is normal, although they are definitely starting to chafe at the lack of independence allowed. This Summer should be interesting.
Trigger warning: all the things. All of them. Seriously.
Angela Cardinal, a homeless First Nations woman suffers sexual assault and attempted murder. Terrible, awful. There’s pictures in the story, beware.
Then the legal system gets involved, and things go south.
Seriously, don’t read this unless you are ready to be disgusted ten ways.
The only vaguely nice part is that the justice minister seems to actually be completely disgusted. She personally called the victim’s mother to apologize and vowed to change things.
She called the mother because the victim died in an “accidental” shooting before trial.
Edit: fuck it. Search for “Angela Cardinal” — I don’t want someone accidentally clicking. Trigger warning on the search itself!