erin (she/her)

On the contrary, since growing my nails out my nails have been way more clean. There is an awkward period between no nails and long nails where stuff gets caught underneath, but once you grow them out (only two weeks or so), they’re perfectly clean because there’s just more space underneath and nowhere for gunk to get caught as the angle is wider.

(Classic guitar players have long nails)

It totally can be. You should avoid ubiquitous blanket statements, you’re bound to be wrong a fair percentage of the time. Judgement doesn’t look good on anyone. There are plenty of issues with the institution of marriage, especially since it’s been established with a hetero-centric point of view. I’m a gay woman, I’m fully aware of this, and we’ve made active choices to do things our way, not society’s, as do many other gay and straight couples. There is always nuance.

You’ve figured us out. Women™, the monolith. You alone have realized that we all have the same opinions, and we all require large weddings purely as a control method to discomfort everyone else present and place ourselves subconsciously in a position of power. Watch your back, Women™ are coming for you to keep our secret silent.

A tone indicator shouldn’t be necessary. It should be pretty clear that different people just like different things. You might prefer a judge, but myself and my fiancée want a wedding. You claim it causes stress to the guests and participants, but all my friends and family, myself included, love attending weddings. They’re fun parties to celebrate love. All women, like all people, are different. Men can like weddings too.

Plumber, carpenter, construction, woodcraft, metalworker, etc etc. There are plenty of good reasons to own a large vehicle. People who use a large vehicle for its intended purpose aren’t the problem, it’s the assholes driving them for fun that makes everyone else unsafe.

Do you think the first long truck sprang into existence in 2008? We’ve had super long trucks for specific use cases as long as we’ve had trucks. This is like one of the few times a person has a good reason to have a large vehicle, and is being safe and polite about it by staying out of the way and writing a polite note to explain. Large vehicles aren’t the problem, people owning large vehicles who don’t need them are the problem.

Do you know for sure they were protesting cars, not emissions, not raising awareness for any other cause? It doesn’t matter, I’m just curious.

Your complaints about public transportation make no sense. “Public transportation is bad so don’t spend money on it.” Obviously, if we spent money on it, it would be a viable alternative. I spent some time in Austria this year, a country with excellent public transportation. I could step onto a bus (there was one at nearly every stop about every 10 minutes), be at my destination with no delay, hop off, all without ever needing to show my ticket or talk to anyone. Cars would have been vastly more inconvenient to get around the cities, finding parking takes time, and you almost never have the right of way over other vehicles/pedestrians (as you shouldn’t, you’re in the safe metal box and they’re vulnerable). With effective public transportation, I was able to get out into the Alps, go hiking, and come back into the city without needing to worry about any of the complexities of a car. I could hop on the tram, grab dinner downtown, and be back, without ever getting stuck in traffic. It was so much easier and more convenient than anything I’ve ever seen living in the US, and I fully don’t understand the argument against it. No one is stopping you from owning a car! I own a car, and I won’t stop. There are some things I need one for. This movement is about effective public transportation, and there is no reason to be against it except insecurity, and apparently a fragile ego. What’s next, antifascism protestors block your way to work and you start wearing a swastika? Being reactionary accomplishes nothing good for yourself. If you’re that easily manipulated, every false flag will work on you with no questions asked.

It was a general assumption, and apparently not an accurate one. I don’t presume to actually know how you think from one comment. There are dog whistles on all sides, because it’s essentially a term for an “inside joke,” minus the humor (usually). It comes up most often with Nazis and racists not because they’re the center of attention necessarily, but mostly because dog whistles are needed primarily by groups that are not socially acceptable. You cannot be openly racist except with other racists, or openly a Nazi except with other Nazis. Dog whistles allow people to declare allegiance and signal to others that believe the same without needing to openly state it. Usually, we still know anyways, but it gives them plausible deniability in their eyes.

What? They used the word correctly. How are you gonna pull out “both sides” when they’re correct? It hasn’t lost its meaning, you just don’t like hearing it so often because, surprise surprise, there’s an awful lot of dog whistling going on in the current political cycle. It means a signal used to communicate loyalty or belief to an idea, group, platform, etc, that is understood by other people who agree, and not necessarily obvious to the neutral observer. In this case, the word “woke” is a dog whistle for bigots. It was applied correctly.

I think your prejudice is blinding you to something that makes good sense in context. I don’t expect to change your mind, or even that I could, but it seems odd to blanket denounce a behavior present throughout North and South America on such a weak premise as “we don’t do it here.” How can you be blind to the use in communicating shared histories in an increasingly multicultural society? I think you’ll find that the same behavior is present in many primarily immigrant nations. The US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and others. It’s just a shortcut we make because those categories, however arbitrary, mean something to us and allow quicker sharing of information. “America bad” is such a tired argument. Americans may have a generally high opinion of themselves, but I think you’ll find similar behavior in the defensive nature of those that belittle them as well. Humans are humans wherever you go. Step down off your high horse and recognize that maybe a behavior that naturally develops among hundreds of millions of independent people from different backgrounds entirely might be due more to its intrinsic value than some bizarrely specific American thing. Because it isn’t. Americans are just an obvious example of it since they have such an overwhelming presence online.

It’s not about the overall age of the country, it’s how long on average most people have been here. The majority of Americans haven’t had family here for more than a few generations, and that number is skewing rapidly towards the shorter side as more and more people emigrate and mix with people already here. How can you expect a people where most come from a different country far more recently than the founding of the US to have a shared cultural heritage? It’s the same type of talking points the American right espouses to denounce immigrants, as though they need to assimilate into a shared culture, when they’re really just being racist.

There isn’t some shared culture; America is a very rich blend of cultures. My first generation neighbors are no less American than I am, who have had family here for three generations, and I’m no less American than my friend who can trace their family back to the original 13 colonies. The cultural heritage of America isn’t a shared one, unless you only care about the culture of the European settlers, a minority. Most countries just don’t experience this level of blending of different people from around the entire world. It isn’t the most diverse country, and doesn’t have the most immigrants each year, but it’s mostly populated by people that trace their heritage back to somewhere else. A lot of the Americas share a very similar tradition of distinguishing what parts of their past trace to different cultures, because the people that live on these continents now, unfortunately, are almost entirely not the original people that lived here.

America is a melting pot of ethnicities and cultural heritages, so it’s useful to be able to identify when those of a common background. I’m German and Jewish, and saying so lets me find common ground or complimentary differences with those I meet that are of similar or different backgrounds. I might discover that someone I met has a shared culrural heritage including foods or traditions I share, or have experiences entirely different than mine. I’d rather know the difference if the person I meet celebrates one set of holidays or another, so I might be polite and not assume. I don’t think it’s strange at all, as though culture isn’t entirely tied to ethnicity, they frequently overlap greatly. It often has nothing to do with ethnicity as well, as often someone will reference how they were raised as a cultural background and not as the arbitrary boundaries we place between people that look slightly different.

It has nothing to do with useless categorization and everything to do with a country filled almost entirely with immigrants from around the world. Other than indigenous peoples, everyone that lives here has only been here a few generations at most. The people around me during my day to day life have dozens of different backgrounds and languages, which is true in many places around the world but especially in a country of immigrants. We don’t have a long shared cultural heritage like most countries do. We bring our histories with us from everywhere else. Race is an entirely social construct, so being able to distinguish oneself as German rather than French, or Turkish instead of Armenian, or Japanese rather than Korean can help the person you’re speaking to have an idea of what cultures you’ve been exposed to, since such a blend of different ethnicities means it might not be apparent. I certainly don’t have any of the common traits of anyone of my heritage except my skin tone, so when I meet someone with shared heritage we can connect by simply saying so.

Fascinating. I do have a lot of childhood trauma, though I wouldn’t consider it “early” childhood. And I do misplace things often, though that might be more due to ADHD or my general scatterbrained forgetfulness.

Thank you for your genuine curiosity! I like talking about things like this, and it’s nice to not be confronted by people telling me I’m wrong about my own mind. As far as my fiancée, we do collaborate using music as well! I’m a musician and play dozens of instruments, all of which I hang around our house among her drawings and paintings. We like to mix her animation and my music.

What others have found interesting in the past is how I conceptualize spaces around me, especially when imagining things like my DnD campaign that I run. I don’t see things in my head visually, but more have a general special sense of them. I don’t need to visualize my foot or my hand to know where it is. I don’t need to visualize the wall of my room that I’m very familiar with; even with my eyes closed I know my relative position in the space and can find the light switch in the dark, or the fan. It’s the same for my spacial reasoning. I can navigate the world perfectly fine, or conceptualize a fictional DnD battle, not visually, but more like through touch, though that’s not exactly the sensation. I cannot rotate the proverbial cube in my mind, but I can conceive of what another face might feel like, and, if it’s not too TMI, I have a very good mental map of my fiancée’s body, and could draw her accurately, even if I can’t see her.

No, certainly not. It’s a condition known as aphantasia, and isn’t something that can be cured with practice. I have a lifetime of practice in conceptualizing in a different way though. I don’t feel that I’m missing out on anything really, just experiencing the world differently. I didn’t even know that I was any different than most until I was an adult, and a friend of mine made me realize it.

Someone with aphantasia might be able to learn how to conceptualize in a different way, but I don’t think you can train what’s not there, any more than a blind person could train themselves to see. There isn’t a lot of study into it though, and I’ve found it difficult to get solid information on my condition, so perhaps there’s more to learn. Why, for example, do I have a very vivid imagination of sounds? I can imagine an entire song in all of its different instruments as if I could hear it, but I can’t even conceive even a little bit of what it means to see something in my head.

I’ve had it explained to me very often by people with varying degrees of sincerity or understanding, and I still don’t quite get it. Is it like dreaming, or like a hallucination, or like an image you can’t really see but still know is there? It’s foreign to me, and no description I’ve heard makes it clear. I dream quite clearly and in color, but that’s like I’m there experiencing it in person. I’d love to learn more about aphantasia, especially since my fiancée has the opposite, hyperphantasia, and it would be nice to more easily collaborate as artists.

I love reading, and I love writing and storytelling. I think books can be for anyone. I wouldn’t let a difference in perception preclude you from enjoying an entire form of media, entertainment, and information. For me, audiobooks work best to hold my attention, as I struggle to sit and read words in front of me without keeping myself busy. It’s not a fit for everyone, and not everyone will like reading, but I think it’s a very simple joy that so many people have had hammered out of them by bad parents, bad teachers, or bad education systems that taught them to dread or hate books and reading. I got back into reading as an adult, and it’s one of the most fulfilling parts of my day.

I can do that too. You’re misunderstanding the concept. I’m perfectly capable of drawing, eyes closed or not (though it’s much harder eyes closed, obviously). I do digital art. I just conceptualize things differently. I don’t have a mental image, it’s more like a knowledge of what shapes go together to make certain forms. I build things piece by piece from fundamental shapes that I analytically know make certain objects or creatures, but I don’t have an image of what it is until I have actually put it down in paper.

I don’t know if I worded that in a way that makes sense, as I’ve always struggled with explaining how I conceptualize to people that have an ability I don’t. I know what shapes make up a dog, but I can’t see the dog, if that makes any sense.

It really fucked me up when I realized that “picture this” wasn’t an entirely figurative saying, and everyone else does actually see stuff in their “mind’s eye.”

Expressed well or not, you didn’t use any logical fallacies or resort to ad hominem attacks. I could disagree on every point and still enjoy the discussion just for the sake of respectful debate. Hope to run into you again.