it's not inappropriate to use male pronouns to refer to someone presenting as typically male, unless they've made it clear that they are not a man
but it is transphobic and prejudiced to negatively value, stereotype and discriminate against people whose appearance or identity doesn't match narrowly defined social expectations of gender
IMHO, that is not what Carlin was doing, he was making what is known as a pun. Still, I do consider the issue to be important despite my somewhat flip attitude. So please, explain exactly how Carlin's comment is negatively valuing, stereotyping, or discriminating against transgendered people? Here it is again:
I know a transsexual guy whose only ambition is to eat, drink, and be Mary.
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
Removing the moisture from the meat is the reason to start low and end high. Also, I believe flour absorbs water from the meat and releases it more quickly, helping the meat dry out and brown more quickly. Anyway, that's why I think we flour and brown meat destined for the stew pot or slow cooker. I don't really want to get into a big argument over it, you are correct that meat browning isn't really the Maillard reaction but it is a browning reaction and the technical points related to cooking technique are the same, as you mention, food must be dry before any browning can take place because it can not get hot enough until the water is gone.
But you know, if you really feel like a competition, we could face off with souffles at dawn. Have at thee!
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
No problem! If, on the other hand, you enjoy bland but good food, they have another magazine, Cook's Country which has more traditional bland American food. I was in a relationship with a woman who liked only bland food, so such people do exist. It was for me, as a cook, a little slice of hell, but she made up for it in other respects.
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
While this is true, many meat preparations use carbohydrates in the coating, and these do permit the Maillard reaction to take place, jump starting the browning of meat.
Yes, it is laughable that you guessed at my personal circumstances in a line of attack. What possessed you to do such a thing?
You simply don't understand economics. Let me ask you, how big is the American manufacturing sector right now? I mean, what percentage of GDP. Now, an important question: how big was it at its largest?
Do you count creating commercials or movies as manufacturing? How about banking? Are those things economically valuable? What about software consulting? Is that manufacturing? What sector do economists put it in?
Demand is specific. It does not always exist. Did demand for computers exist before there were computers? No. Does the creation of a new entertainment medium reduce demand for other entertainment mediums? History says yes, it does. When people are poor, do they demand as much entertainment as when they are rich, or do they prioritize other things, such as food and shelter? Your definition of 'demand' renders the word meaningless, and completely useless in economic contexts. What word would you use instead of 'demand' in the contexts I just gave?
I question your example of Stalin as being a problem with government. Hitler too. Is cancer a problem with the person who has it? Is the solution to kill the person? No, you remove the cancer. Stalin would have worked his evil with whatever tools were available. Without government, what would have stopped him from raising a personal army? Or using cash to get what he wanted? Read history, when you have lassez faire, you have personal armies run by robber barons who have no qualms with bashing in a few heads.
If you grew up under Soviet dictatorship, I can understand why you have a problem with government. Someone who had an abusive father, for instance, might be mislead into thinking all fathers were abusive. Just remember that a dictator never calls their dictatorship that. Is north Korea really a democracy? Nope. Do you blame democracies for the ills of North Korea? Well, maybe you do, but most people realize it isn't a democracy.
In your system, what would keep powerful individuals from using money to control markets? How could markets remain free if they were open to blatant extra-market manipulation by those with enough money to do it?
Didn't mean it as a troll? I think you might be stretching the truth there. I hope no one is sore at you, but some people find it to be quite a big deal. I'm surprised you tried to fit such a reference into this discussion. I mean, I don't want to be a huge ass about it, but your timing stinks.
Are you denying you made an argument based on my (guessed at) personal circumstances? I quote:
the correction is that by the looks of it, they don't need to 'not let' you, you are quite happy doing it yourself. You believe gov't is there to take care of you economically. When it fails (and it will) to do so, you'll have somebody to blame, but in reality you are to blame yourself.
You do not speak of demand as an economist does, you have your own theoretical underpinning that is unrelated to the standard definition of 'demand.' Demand is not imaginary, what everyone would want if their resources were unlimited. That is ludicrous. Demand refers to what people actually prioritize for purchase with the funds they have available.
Government does create actual value, it seems silly to argue otherwise. What are roads, schools, bridges, and sewers? Services add value as well, it is silly to claim otherwise. Regulation itself is a valuable service, it keeps markets free.
You see, power comes not just from people's collective action through government, it also comes from economic disparity. When someone has a lot and others don't have enough to survive on their own, and are restrained by notions of other people's private property from producing enough on their own, then the poor are slaves of the wealthy. By acting collectively, societies can limit the unfair accumulation of private power by individuals.
There is really only one reason I can comprehend for wanting to get rid of government, and it is getting rid of that capacity for weak individuals to collectively punish and constrain powerful individuals.
Let me just ask you this simple question: do you want to get rid of weak individuals' power to punish and constrain the powerful?
Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Any geek who aspires to cook good food would do well to read the magazine, Cook's Illustrated and watch the PBS series America's Test Kitchen, that puts out the magazine. This is a nonprofit foundation, the magazine has no ads, like Consumer Reports. They perform scientific experiments on recipes. In a typical article, they will find a classic recipe, analyze the many variations, and explain what commonly goes wrong. They will then attempt to correct the flaws, turning to their food scientists for explanations of things like the Maillard reaction and why adding veal makes a meatloaf jucier (it's the gelatin in veal forming a matrix that keeps water from escaping.) They also perform unbiased reviews of equipment that will let you know, for instance, which cheap nonstick skillet outperforms all the expensive ones.
I've found the scientific approach helpful in my own cooking, not just when recreating the recipes given. Once you know how the Maillard reaction works, for instance, you know why searing meat first and then finishing is not as good as starting at a low temperature and finishing at a high one. Once you understand why Brassicas respond well to a high, dry heat you will never boil brussel sprouts or cauliflower again.
You still believe in the primacy of Ego, that a finite Ego can control the infinite universe. Ego is not in control, it is merely a link in the unbroken chain of cause and effect. Like most egotists, you seek to elevate Ego to the status of uncaused cause. It isn't. Conspiracy theories make the Ego feel good. They are masturbatory.
Sure, there may be people attempting conspiracies, but those people can not comprehend even the most basic and obvious of unintended consequences that spring up from any attempt to exert control. Conspiracies are their own undoing.
I'm doing fine on my own. In fact, I could do fine on my own in nearly any country on Earth, and I have. I have a set of skills that are eminently marketable, if the systems administration skill set won't support me, the chef skill set will. It's not myself I am worried about.
I believe that we are all responsible for each other's well being, that we all have a duty to take care of our fellow man, at least to a minimal level. I believe in the old African saying, "It takes free individuals to make a strong tribe, and it takes a strong tribe to make free individuals." We are interdependent, like it or not. None of us can be really free without the support of other humans. And yes, I believe that collective, democratic action is the true path to building a strong tribe that empowers free individuals.
Unless I'm horribly confused, corporations are made up of people. Yes, diffusion of responsibility can make it easy for people in the corporation to lay blame elsewhere, from outside it is obvious that every decision was made by an individual or individuals.
More importantly, we are a democracy and corporations can not vote.
I thought persons made the decisions at corporations. You could hold the person that made the decision responsible. Or you could actually hold the corporation itself responsible: break it up and sell it off, the corporate death penalty. We human beings made the rules we operate under right now. and we can change them.
"They" aren't that smart. The only real conspiracy is the conspiracy to get people to believe that somewhere out there, there are human beings smart enough to pull off a real conspiracy. It makes people feel better to think that someone, even someone evil, has a grasp on things and is in control. Ego likes to feel that it is possible for Ego to be in control. It is not possible.
Huh? I was civil before. You, however, have had trouble with your tone this entire thread, telling me variously to 'go suck a big one,' and calling em a 'fucking idiot.' Note, that was before I had said anything unkind to you.
We disagree completely on the effect of government spending, I find your rationalizations nonsensical.
Your explanation of trade imbalance ignores the fact that China has pegged the Yuan to the dollar, and therefore, a trade imbalance can not effect currency exchange rates.
You have a basic misunderstanding of economics as well. You don't seem to understand that money spent does not disappear. When people save money rather than spend it, where does that money go? Into unsold inventory. That is your big investment, stuff people won't buy. However, when people buy stuff, the money they spent can be reinvested in producing more stuff. And it will be invested like that, because the demand is already there.
If people are not buying things, and they are 'saving' their money, what will the wealthy do? Will they invest in new jobs here? No, of course not, there is no demand here. They will invest it someplace else, or put the money into... wait for it... government bonds.
Which is what they are actually doing. Note that despite your analysis that people should not trust the credit of the government, they, uh, do. Completely.
No, that is the reality of supposedly 'free transactions' in most of the world, and if you don't understand that, much of the world will not make sense to you.
I'm saying, the vast majority of people in the world are severely limited by circumstances and must accept the first offer anyone gives them that would allow their continued survival. If they had been born before civilization, they would have a chance on their own in the wild, but civilization has usurped that possibility and so it must in all fairness offer a similar one where people have some autonomy along with their survival.
You want to know something ArcherB? You gotta promise to keep it a secret from my liberal friends though, okay? (whispers) iwantasmallfederalgovernment.
I'm really an anarchist. A social anarchist, not a libertarian one, but anarchism means 'no rulers,' no heirarchy, no imposition of rule by force. I want all this social safety net stuff, but my philosophy won't let me impose it. So how could we enact such things if the whole country isn't behind it? A fifty state free market of governance, and the only way THAT will come about is with a smaller fed. Let California go full socialist. Let Oregon go libertarian. Let the states govern as they will and only get the fed involved when someone ignores the Constitution. Severely restrict the power of the commerce clause. It is not a catch all encompassing everything the enumerated powers missed! Apportion taxes according to population, no more robbing New York to pay Georgia.
If I could find some real conservative candidates that supported the above without also supporting totally insane things, I might even consider voting for them. The problem for me is that the two party system makes finding anyone who supports anything remotely like what I want impossible.
As for 'gutting enforcement agencies' I was referring to things like OSHA, the EPA, and so forth.
You just made up that 20-30% effective tax rate. You just pulled it out of thin air and wishful thinking, and you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.
Stopping government would simply give everything to the rich. Government is our only protection against the powerful. Regulations commit to law the community standards that we citizens agree everyone must adhere to. If we say pollution is bad, you don't do it or we punish you. If we say that paying people too little and taking too much is bad, then you do what we tell you to do or you do not get the privilege of living with us and doing business with us. You get the hell out of our country if you won't play by our rules.
This truth transcends government. Even were you to get rid of "government" regulation, "communities" (another word for government) would step up and make sure people weren't taken advantage of, and everyone played by the rules. You can not escape it except by living as a hermit.
You do not and will not get a chance to enforce your will on others. We will ensure that you can not accumulate enough power to dominate others. You will give back to your community or you will not be a part of it.
What is the difference between holding a gun to a man's head and saying "work for me or die." and saying "work for me or starve" to someone with no food? In both cases, the person has the same amount of choice: none.
You are only bound by law if you are caught. So the rich have gutted enforcement agencies. They don't get caught, for the most part.
This is a democracy. The rich have political clout only because people choose to listen to them. Let's stop doing that. Besides, that was the rich of yesteryear. Today's rich wouldn't stoop to help the country during an emergency.
Holy Fuck, Atlas Shrugged? Seriously? You are recommending the worst piece of pseudo-philosophical tripe written in the last thousand years? Go back to study hall, college boy.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not inappropriate to use male pronouns to refer to someone presenting as typically male, unless they've made it clear that they are not a man
but it is transphobic and prejudiced to negatively value, stereotype and discriminate against people whose appearance or identity doesn't match narrowly defined social expectations of gender
IMHO, that is not what Carlin was doing, he was making what is known as a pun. Still, I do consider the issue to be important despite my somewhat flip attitude. So please, explain exactly how Carlin's comment is negatively valuing, stereotyping, or discriminating against transgendered people? Here it is again:
I know a transsexual guy whose only ambition is to eat, drink, and be Mary.
Removing the moisture from the meat is the reason to start low and end high. Also, I believe flour absorbs water from the meat and releases it more quickly, helping the meat dry out and brown more quickly. Anyway, that's why I think we flour and brown meat destined for the stew pot or slow cooker. I don't really want to get into a big argument over it, you are correct that meat browning isn't really the Maillard reaction but it is a browning reaction and the technical points related to cooking technique are the same, as you mention, food must be dry before any browning can take place because it can not get hot enough until the water is gone.
But you know, if you really feel like a competition, we could face off with souffles at dawn. Have at thee!
No problem! If, on the other hand, you enjoy bland but good food, they have another magazine, Cook's Country which has more traditional bland American food. I was in a relationship with a woman who liked only bland food, so such people do exist. It was for me, as a cook, a little slice of hell, but she made up for it in other respects.
While this is true, many meat preparations use carbohydrates in the coating, and these do permit the Maillard reaction to take place, jump starting the browning of meat.
You might not realize this, but your sig is hostile and transphobic, even if it is a quote by Carlin.
It's inappropriate to refer to a trans woman as a 'transsexual guy'
What if this guy Carlin is referring too has just made his decision and is not yet living as a woman? I think you are really splitting Harry's here.
I've found that to be true about America's Test Kitchen, but Cook's Illustrated has recipes that tend to be more flavorful.
I do my best. :)
Yes, it is laughable that you guessed at my personal circumstances in a line of attack. What possessed you to do such a thing?
You simply don't understand economics. Let me ask you, how big is the American manufacturing sector right now? I mean, what percentage of GDP. Now, an important question: how big was it at its largest?
Do you count creating commercials or movies as manufacturing? How about banking? Are those things economically valuable? What about software consulting? Is that manufacturing? What sector do economists put it in?
Demand is specific. It does not always exist. Did demand for computers exist before there were computers? No. Does the creation of a new entertainment medium reduce demand for other entertainment mediums? History says yes, it does. When people are poor, do they demand as much entertainment as when they are rich, or do they prioritize other things, such as food and shelter? Your definition of 'demand' renders the word meaningless, and completely useless in economic contexts. What word would you use instead of 'demand' in the contexts I just gave?
I question your example of Stalin as being a problem with government. Hitler too. Is cancer a problem with the person who has it? Is the solution to kill the person? No, you remove the cancer. Stalin would have worked his evil with whatever tools were available. Without government, what would have stopped him from raising a personal army? Or using cash to get what he wanted? Read history, when you have lassez faire, you have personal armies run by robber barons who have no qualms with bashing in a few heads.
If you grew up under Soviet dictatorship, I can understand why you have a problem with government. Someone who had an abusive father, for instance, might be mislead into thinking all fathers were abusive. Just remember that a dictator never calls their dictatorship that. Is north Korea really a democracy? Nope. Do you blame democracies for the ills of North Korea? Well, maybe you do, but most people realize it isn't a democracy.
In your system, what would keep powerful individuals from using money to control markets? How could markets remain free if they were open to blatant extra-market manipulation by those with enough money to do it?
Didn't mean it as a troll? I think you might be stretching the truth there. I hope no one is sore at you, but some people find it to be quite a big deal. I'm surprised you tried to fit such a reference into this discussion. I mean, I don't want to be a huge ass about it, but your timing stinks.
Are you denying you made an argument based on my (guessed at) personal circumstances? I quote:
the correction is that by the looks of it, they don't need to 'not let' you, you are quite happy doing it yourself. You believe gov't is there to take care of you economically. When it fails (and it will) to do so, you'll have somebody to blame, but in reality you are to blame yourself.
You do not speak of demand as an economist does, you have your own theoretical underpinning that is unrelated to the standard definition of 'demand.' Demand is not imaginary, what everyone would want if their resources were unlimited. That is ludicrous. Demand refers to what people actually prioritize for purchase with the funds they have available.
Government does create actual value, it seems silly to argue otherwise. What are roads, schools, bridges, and sewers? Services add value as well, it is silly to claim otherwise. Regulation itself is a valuable service, it keeps markets free.
You see, power comes not just from people's collective action through government, it also comes from economic disparity. When someone has a lot and others don't have enough to survive on their own, and are restrained by notions of other people's private property from producing enough on their own, then the poor are slaves of the wealthy. By acting collectively, societies can limit the unfair accumulation of private power by individuals.
There is really only one reason I can comprehend for wanting to get rid of government, and it is getting rid of that capacity for weak individuals to collectively punish and constrain powerful individuals.
Let me just ask you this simple question: do you want to get rid of weak individuals' power to punish and constrain the powerful?
Any geek who aspires to cook good food would do well to read the magazine, Cook's Illustrated and watch the PBS series America's Test Kitchen, that puts out the magazine. This is a nonprofit foundation, the magazine has no ads, like Consumer Reports. They perform scientific experiments on recipes. In a typical article, they will find a classic recipe, analyze the many variations, and explain what commonly goes wrong. They will then attempt to correct the flaws, turning to their food scientists for explanations of things like the Maillard reaction and why adding veal makes a meatloaf jucier (it's the gelatin in veal forming a matrix that keeps water from escaping.) They also perform unbiased reviews of equipment that will let you know, for instance, which cheap nonstick skillet outperforms all the expensive ones.
I've found the scientific approach helpful in my own cooking, not just when recreating the recipes given. Once you know how the Maillard reaction works, for instance, you know why searing meat first and then finishing is not as good as starting at a low temperature and finishing at a high one. Once you understand why Brassicas respond well to a high, dry heat you will never boil brussel sprouts or cauliflower again.
You still believe in the primacy of Ego, that a finite Ego can control the infinite universe. Ego is not in control, it is merely a link in the unbroken chain of cause and effect. Like most egotists, you seek to elevate Ego to the status of uncaused cause. It isn't. Conspiracy theories make the Ego feel good. They are masturbatory.
Sure, there may be people attempting conspiracies, but those people can not comprehend even the most basic and obvious of unintended consequences that spring up from any attempt to exert control. Conspiracies are their own undoing.
I'm doing fine on my own. In fact, I could do fine on my own in nearly any country on Earth, and I have. I have a set of skills that are eminently marketable, if the systems administration skill set won't support me, the chef skill set will. It's not myself I am worried about.
I believe that we are all responsible for each other's well being, that we all have a duty to take care of our fellow man, at least to a minimal level. I believe in the old African saying, "It takes free individuals to make a strong tribe, and it takes a strong tribe to make free individuals." We are interdependent, like it or not. None of us can be really free without the support of other humans. And yes, I believe that collective, democratic action is the true path to building a strong tribe that empowers free individuals.
Unless I'm horribly confused, corporations are made up of people. Yes, diffusion of responsibility can make it easy for people in the corporation to lay blame elsewhere, from outside it is obvious that every decision was made by an individual or individuals.
More importantly, we are a democracy and corporations can not vote.
I thought persons made the decisions at corporations. You could hold the person that made the decision responsible. Or you could actually hold the corporation itself responsible: break it up and sell it off, the corporate death penalty. We human beings made the rules we operate under right now. and we can change them.
"They" aren't that smart. The only real conspiracy is the conspiracy to get people to believe that somewhere out there, there are human beings smart enough to pull off a real conspiracy. It makes people feel better to think that someone, even someone evil, has a grasp on things and is in control. Ego likes to feel that it is possible for Ego to be in control. It is not possible.
Huh? I was civil before. You, however, have had trouble with your tone this entire thread, telling me variously to 'go suck a big one,' and calling em a 'fucking idiot.' Note, that was before I had said anything unkind to you.
We disagree completely on the effect of government spending, I find your rationalizations nonsensical.
Your explanation of trade imbalance ignores the fact that China has pegged the Yuan to the dollar, and therefore, a trade imbalance can not effect currency exchange rates.
You have a basic misunderstanding of economics as well. You don't seem to understand that money spent does not disappear. When people save money rather than spend it, where does that money go? Into unsold inventory. That is your big investment, stuff people won't buy. However, when people buy stuff, the money they spent can be reinvested in producing more stuff. And it will be invested like that, because the demand is already there.
If people are not buying things, and they are 'saving' their money, what will the wealthy do? Will they invest in new jobs here? No, of course not, there is no demand here. They will invest it someplace else, or put the money into... wait for it... government bonds.
Which is what they are actually doing. Note that despite your analysis that people should not trust the credit of the government, they, uh, do. Completely.
No, that is the reality of supposedly 'free transactions' in most of the world, and if you don't understand that, much of the world will not make sense to you.
Right? I mean "Oh no, our competitors are leaving the market place! Horrors!" Yeah, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Galt.
I'm saying, the vast majority of people in the world are severely limited by circumstances and must accept the first offer anyone gives them that would allow their continued survival. If they had been born before civilization, they would have a chance on their own in the wild, but civilization has usurped that possibility and so it must in all fairness offer a similar one where people have some autonomy along with their survival.
You want to know something ArcherB? You gotta promise to keep it a secret from my liberal friends though, okay? (whispers) iwantasmallfederalgovernment.
I'm really an anarchist. A social anarchist, not a libertarian one, but anarchism means 'no rulers,' no heirarchy, no imposition of rule by force. I want all this social safety net stuff, but my philosophy won't let me impose it. So how could we enact such things if the whole country isn't behind it? A fifty state free market of governance, and the only way THAT will come about is with a smaller fed. Let California go full socialist. Let Oregon go libertarian. Let the states govern as they will and only get the fed involved when someone ignores the Constitution. Severely restrict the power of the commerce clause. It is not a catch all encompassing everything the enumerated powers missed! Apportion taxes according to population, no more robbing New York to pay Georgia.
If I could find some real conservative candidates that supported the above without also supporting totally insane things, I might even consider voting for them. The problem for me is that the two party system makes finding anyone who supports anything remotely like what I want impossible.
As for 'gutting enforcement agencies' I was referring to things like OSHA, the EPA, and so forth.
You just made up that 20-30% effective tax rate. You just pulled it out of thin air and wishful thinking, and you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.
Stopping government would simply give everything to the rich. Government is our only protection against the powerful. Regulations commit to law the community standards that we citizens agree everyone must adhere to. If we say pollution is bad, you don't do it or we punish you. If we say that paying people too little and taking too much is bad, then you do what we tell you to do or you do not get the privilege of living with us and doing business with us. You get the hell out of our country if you won't play by our rules.
This truth transcends government. Even were you to get rid of "government" regulation, "communities" (another word for government) would step up and make sure people weren't taken advantage of, and everyone played by the rules. You can not escape it except by living as a hermit.
You do not and will not get a chance to enforce your will on others. We will ensure that you can not accumulate enough power to dominate others. You will give back to your community or you will not be a part of it.
What is the difference between holding a gun to a man's head and saying "work for me or die." and saying "work for me or starve" to someone with no food? In both cases, the person has the same amount of choice: none.
You are only bound by law if you are caught. So the rich have gutted enforcement agencies. They don't get caught, for the most part.
This is a democracy. The rich have political clout only because people choose to listen to them. Let's stop doing that. Besides, that was the rich of yesteryear. Today's rich wouldn't stoop to help the country during an emergency.
Holy Fuck, Atlas Shrugged? Seriously? You are recommending the worst piece of pseudo-philosophical tripe written in the last thousand years? Go back to study hall, college boy.