Yes, there is a difference between staring and looking, in so far as those terms are commonly used in american english:

From Oxford Languages via Google: Stare: look fixedly or vacantly at someone or something with one’s eyes wide open Look: direct one’s gaze toward someone or something or in a specified direction So “staring” means looking fixedly or vacantly. This takes “looking” to a different place because it implies your thoughts are lingering on the thing you are staring at, which in the case of cleavage would be sexually suggestive (and therefore could make someone uncomfortable). It’s not too far off from catcalling in my opinion. It is much less sexually suggestive to stare at someone’s shoes or a cool hat, so clearly the context of staring is important as to whether it is offensive.

Also, you seem to have missed an important part of my earlier response:

It is also important to think about how choices over what one wears are driven by many factors, not just a desire to have people look at you. I think many women (especially younger women) have been made to feel that they must wear revealing clothing to fit in or be cool, so it isn’t really so simple as just an invitation for men to stare.

This is why I don’t think that it is accurate to say:

So if women want to wear clothes showing off their breasts then I am quite certain they want people to look at those breasts.

There is a difference between looking/noticing and staring in my opinion.

It is also important to think about how choices over what one wears are driven by many factors, not just a desire to have people look at you. I think many women (especially younger women) have been made to feel that they must wear revealing clothing to fit in or be cool, so it isn’t really so simple as just an invitation for men to stare.

As for why men should not stare, it is because the male gaze (everyone’s gaze really) has power and affects people’s emotions, and it is worthwhile to care about how other people feel and not do something that would make a large portion of people feel uncomfortable such as staring at someone’s cleavage. Basically, it is impolite.

I’m confused - are you trying to argue that we should not try to stop the spread of hateful propaganda? Or just that it doesn’t matter to have it in schools? Maybe you are trying to argue that exposing children to hateful rhetoric will not have an impact on their developing brains?

What you are saying does not make sense to me.

From my perspective it is worth pointing out because it shows how Kirk’s murder was NOT a good thing, and is NOT something that should be looked back upon with glee. Rather than being the end of Charlie Kirk’s vision for Turning Point, his death invigorated it and has now potentially set up an entire generation to be propagandized.

It would have been better for the world for Kirk to have kept living and continue embarrassing himself (which he did on a daily basis) and come to a more typical end for these far right influencers - jailed/disgraced. Not to mention that noone deserves to be executed, especially without a trial.

For which Volkswagen was fined approximately $30 million… Compared to having grossed €59.5 billion in 2024… Nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Cost of doing business, you could say.

I have been going through a very similar experience to you. The more coworkers I have over the years, the more people I realize are extremely jaded and having a tough time caring at all about the world at large.

This is a pretty complicated issue. I think that means you need a sort of patchwork of paradigms to apply to the issue at the right moment.

Sometimes you need to give yourself a break and let yourself live your life - you only get one, and joy is an essential part of a functioning human, and you must continue to function if you are to continue impacting your world.

Other times you must keep in mind that it is literally completely illogical to say that your actions have no impact, obviously each individual action on it’s own is small but the actions humanity makes are made up of individuals. Change happens one person at a time, and individuals are difference-makers.

Consider professional sports teams where the stars elevate the team to the next level - they cannot do their work by themselves, every member of the team is needed and makes an impact, but the impacts are not all the same. You will see the same dynamic play out in the typical workplace - a relatively small portion of people really make things happen at most workplaces in my experience, but they still need the team to help them get it done. So you should continue to think of your actions as being important/having meaning in my opinion, and you should keep striving to make the world a better place.

Sometimes when there is a situation that frustrates me but that I know I cannot change (or cannot change immediately or in full), it helps to quiet that thing in my head that worries by practicing mindfulness techniques. Personally I find “box breathing” (a style of controlling breathing to regulate heart rate and perhaps lower cortisol) to be most effective. Maybe this or some other method could help to quel your feelings when you know that it is a situation to let go of.

Even with a car payment being $750/month, that’s a pretty fancy car from my perspective - and represents the average car payment for a new car.

I think that these folks could keep up with expenses much more easily if a few minor compromises were made (namely, a cheaper car).

Given that the legs move a little bit, I would suggest adding at least a small amount of bracing in addition to whatever you choose to do to fix the center of gravity problem.

Also, bracing helps to stiffen the structure by resisting forces that would make the wooden rectangle into a parallelogram. Here is an illustration:

This does not convince me that we should redirect all effort away from environmental legislation. In my view human rights are very much intertwined with environmental stewardship.

deleted by creator

Even if you feel that the white house should stop being used as an active part of the USA government, it doesn’t make sense to tear it down.

Take Auschwitz for example - a horrible place, but worth preserving so that future generations can see history in person and learn from the past. At the very least, the whitehouse is worth preserving for its historical value, if nothing else.

I would say that food scarcity in preindustrial countries is not “manufactured” per se, because there isn’t an excess of food lying around in those places. You are right that people there starve in part because it isn’t profitable to get food to them, but there are other reasons too such as lack of adequate infrastructure to store and transport food and perhaps even lack of trained personnel to distribute it etc.

So really I think for preindustrial countries it’s a complex picture that basically boils down to the oppositional philosophy generally held when considering international relations. So in a situation like that I think it isn’t accurate to say that scarcity was manufactured in order to justify the existence of capitalism.

Also your statement that it isn’t profitable to industrialize other nations and so we don’t seems contrary to what I understand, which is that it is often profitable and that is why developed nations are often trying to invest in industrialization efforts (of course taking their unfair piece of the action in doing so). I feel that this principal of investing in industrialization has largely guided the international efforts of China, the USA, and others.

I think there is a big difference between “tough love” and unkindness. I don’t think being unkind is ever the best way to encourage someone to improve. Instead be “blunt” in communication/upfront with constructive criticism - which I see as a kindness.

I see how this meme is clearly targeting capitalism and not farmers, and I understand and agree with the point that money is the primary incentive for growing food under capitalism.

But in my opinion the part about letting people starve in order to manufacture scarcity misses the mark. As far as I can tell, the primary reason that so much food goes to waste is liability. No one wants to sell food that could reasonably be constrained as having caused an illness for fear of a lawsuit - if not for that fact, much more food “waste” would actually go to use. Even in the hypothetical absence of liability no overall food scarcity needs to be manufactured because there remains a scarcity of “premium” food.

Maybe someone can help me out with this… Every time I look at the scientific literature, it suggests that there is likely a link between acetaminophen use and changes in neural development in fetuses/very young children. Folks on Lemmy seem to feel that there is in fact NO evidence. Am I just looking at the wrong papers?

For example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10814214/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036224000011 https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-abstract/138/1/139/1672900 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/toxicology/articles/10.3389/ftox.2022.867748/full