crosswind [they/them]
The goal is to have the fire drive a high airflow, both to give itself oxygen, and to pass the exhaust through a long path of heat absorbing dirt. The metal drum does this by passing the hot exhaust up through its center, then rapidly cooling it as it falls back down along the metal surface. The difference in density drives the airflow. The drum needs a high thermal conductivity to be able to maintain this temperature and density difference, and this is also the primary way the heat is transferred to the living area. The earthen part gathers up the remaining heat to increase efficiency and retain heat for when the stove is off, but most of the heating is done immediately through the metal.
Yeah, not the worst year overall for climate disasters, but it’s a vague enough description there were definitely going to be things like all the temperature records that were broken you could point to as the ‘worst event’. Also the Canadian wildfires were definitely big enough to qualify as at least ‘a big ass fire’.
You’re talking about opposing racist pieces of shit. For that, absolutely, use bullying, punches, bullets, whatever works. But there you’re not trying to make them better people, the goal is to stop them from saying and doing racist shit.
My issue is when this gets applied to trying to get an okay to change their beliefs. It’s not going to work, and you can talk yourself into doing some fucked up stuff that way.
Not bullying someone doesn’t mean being nice and holding their hand, it means not trying to make their life hell. You can still be harsh, blunt, and forceful when calling things out. That’s different from bullying.
I think we should be aware of when it’s an appropriate tool to use, and not treat any criticism of bullying like it’s a call to give a klansman a hug.
Getting in to the fine details of it is important for researchers or doctors who specifically work with the tongue, but the issue that we’re talking about here is how this was commonly taught as absolute fact to young children with no nuance and seemingly for no reason other than it being widely believed.
If anyone is specifically claiming that the tongue is completely uniform in taste reception then they’re it taking too far, sure. But generally when I see this brought up, the focus is on questioning the process of how some facts make it in to what schools teach as “common knowledge” even when they are both wrong and unimportant to daily life and general education.
When a teacher tells a 6-7 year old that flavors can only be tasted on certain parts of your tongue, the problem isn’t that they failed to call it a “spatial component to our experience of gustatory stimulus”. At that age, teachers have to strip out most nuance from any lesson, and the goal is to find a way to explain things that is true enough while still being understandable to young children.
So why, if stripping out the nuance makes it basically wrong, did teachers keep teaching it for a century? Even if it were true, it’s not really important information for most people. Necessarily even, because if it were important to daily life, it would be a lot easier to notice it’s mostly wrong.
I don’t know, and I don’t think there’s an exact reason. I had teachers tell us about this, then seem to realize they needed a reason for it to matter and try to turn it in to a lesson about scientific inquiry. They told us to go home and try putting flavors on the ‘wrong’ parts of the tongue and notice how we couldn’t taste anything. I tried it once, and it didn’t work, and it was never brought up again.
Feel free to educate people about the mechanics of our sense of taste, but I think this is a fine example of myths making it in to what’s taught in schools.
I think this is where the problem is. You can’t bully someone into having better beliefs. You can bully them into shutting up and being scared to say their shitty opinions out loud. There’s a lot of people where achieving that would be great, and for them “bullying works”. But believing that “bullying works” to actually change people for the better leads to some awful behavior, and it’s an issue that a lot of people on this site accept it.
Yeah, I think this is a topic that has room for and is worth a lot of discussion. With this issue, what someone means by ‘using guilt’ can be anything from explaining the consequences of someone’s actions and letting them draw their own conclusions, to ‘bringing down a mountain of Divine Shame’. And sometime people will argue those back and forth as if they’re talking about the same thing.
I wanted to defend the post as having a good point, while definitely having to be incomplete to fit into a short tumblr post. I was glad to be a part of expanding on it in this thread.
My theory is that deplorables is based on outrage, and was part of the 2016 strategy of the dems making a show of how shocked they were at all the norms trump was breaking, which was completely ineffective. Weird has an air of just pointing out the obvious, and can be done in a detached way when appropriate, and that’s spreading much better.
And I think 3 is a big part of it. Not that the chuds weren’t unhinged in 2016, but at the time the moment they were having was getting to say the extreme parts of standard conservatism out loud. What was a fringe position then still generally had a short pathway back to well worn conservative talking points if it got too much attention. But they’ve been chasing the feeling of taking the presidency for eight years, and they’ve spun themselves out into positions that they really can’t explain to anyone who didn’t go on that journey with them, so weird works now in a way it wouldn’t have then.
If you take the test after seeing this post, that was a reaction. It’s too late for you, regardless of the result.