• 2 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 30th, 2023

help-circle

  • AND it’s not very good to never use soap

    Unless we’re talking about washing hands I disagree. Soap is bad for your skin. Water alone is enough to do away with any dirt on your body, and the downside of soap is that it also does away with all sorts of oils that your skin needs to function properly.Of course there are mild soaps, but still it’s not really clear to me what the benefit of soap would be.


  • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nltoAnimemesMore true words have never been spoken
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    I never use deodorant. Also don’t ever use shampoo. I shower once every two days. Never get complaints. Working as a nurse, I;m always close to people who would definitely tell me if I smelled bad. Not saying this will work for everyone nor that everyone should do the same. I do however think that the industry has been successful in marketing these products as must-haves for daily use and I know that’s a lie. Many people who wash regularly won’t have strong odor with or without deodorant or shampoo. I did use them during puberty and I was a bit uncertain when I stopped. They work on your insecurity, and so you’re inclined to keep using these products, everyday, all the time, just to be sure. No one wants to smell bad. I volunteer in a sort of day care for the homeless and the shame people feel when they smell bad and others notice is incredibly large so it makes sense people stick to their deodorant just to be sure. There’s also really no harm in it, but I feel like our hygiene-cleanliness culture is quite extreme sometimes. Deodorants are a real solution for a real problem obviously, but many people over do it and when overdone people reek of deodorant or perfume. Like old ladies on a bus. Yuck.







  • Also, punching Nazis is always morally correct.

    I know the idea behind the paradox of tolerance, I’m just saying that at the very least, it’s not as simple as that. There are definitely grey areas, and IT IS complicated. You really miss the bigger picture if you say it’s always ok to punch a nazi. I’d advise you to read up on the Spanish civil war, how that spun out of control, violence from both sides leading to more violence. You shouldn’t just look at the act of punching a Nazi no it’s own, you should take a helicopter view and see that a punch, will lead to counter punches, which will lead to potentially full blown civil war. You shouldn’t pride yourself in taking a firm stance if doing so is ultimately counterproductive. So what’s the alternative? The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences. And simultaneously trying to take away the breeding ground for fascism, for instance an upper class that’s treating society as their farm animals, getting all the riches, while looking down on them from their high horses. Punching these people and limiting their freedoms is putting oil on the fire.


  • It’s with polarization that things spin out of control. When the left thinks the right are nazi’s and the right think the left are commies, that’s when people become less critical of themselves and hatred spirals into a civil war, and the one that’s on top will do anything to prevent the ‘enemy’ taking over. Tolerating verbal intolerance is a good thing. That’s why your own statement is tolerated, it’s literally advocating intolerance (be it indirectly in favor of tolerance). I really don’t believe your statement is correct. Tolerance leads to tolerance. Intolerance leads to more intolerance. Not tolerating intolerance doesn’t make it disappear, it just makes people feel more strongly about it. When I cant think something or people look down on me for it, I am definitely gonna think it some more. Actual violence should of course not be tolerated. Ergo: is it ok to punch a nazi? No ofcourse not… unless the civil war has started yet and all tolerance is gone, but let’s not go there…




  • Recently been to an exhibition by Robert Ryman in Musée l’orangerie in Paris, and it only contained paintings in white. And as strange as that might sound, it was quite interesting to see all the creativy that’s possible within such restrictions. His work focused on all other aspects, such as the subtle differences in whiteness, the texture of the paint and the way it’s displayed in it’s surroundings. Wouldn’t recommend it to everyone, but if you’re interested in visual art then it’s worth a visit. It makes you aware of elements that you could otherwise easily forget.