Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't really understand the idea that people will exhaust political capital, personal time and effort or much time at all arguing for or against the idea tbh. Its just a toilet. Go expel waste, wash hands, leave.

There doesn't seem to be much useful input or output from all the heat, so, given this, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the noise machine is working hard here either to distract people from genuine social issues, or just to keep the hate boiling away, or, of course, both.

mcmoustache

silverharp wrote: »

I'd only object if urinals were taken out, its my civil right to be able to pee standing up where ever possible

Here here. Dicks out for urinals.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is this not possible in gender neutral bathrooms?

I've been in plenty that have urinals and cubicles. Its not uncommon.

My experience with gender-neutral bathrooms is fairly limited and I haven't seen any with urinals.

If they have urinals, I have no issue.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Male toilets were designed one way before. Female only toilets designed another way.

Purpose built gender neutral toilets (that are not simply redesignated male or female toilets) offer facilities to both sitters and standers. It's not that complex.

I don't really understand the idea that people will exhaust political capital, personal time and effort or much time at all arguing for or against the idea tbh. Its just a toilet. Go expel waste, wash hands, leave.

I have no problem with these politically. As long as I can be in and out in 2 minutes, I'm cool with it. I don't care who I share with as long as I can do my thing.

If as you say, these toilets are designed as gender neutral with urinals and stalls, they'll work well. My only concern is that they just remove the urinals and add more stalls.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

...the burden of queuing will be lower overall and will be evenly spread as between men and women.

So, the rational, efficient, egalitarian approach favours gender-neutral facilities.

Ah, but is it worth the trade-off for the fairer sex? That is the question.
No queues, but wet floors and peed on seats instead.

yesto24

Peregrinus wrote: »

Unless, of course, the people are female, in which case none of what you say about "people" applies to them.

The big advantage that gender-neutral toilets have is efficient use of resources. Since facilities aren't arbitrarily allocated to male or female users exclusively, all facilities are equally available to meet demand, and this avoids the common sight of women queuing to use the female facilities while there are unused male facilities. Of course, this can mean that men may have to queue more often, or longer, than they have had to up to now, since there will be women seeking to use the facilities hitherto reserved exclusively for male use, but the burden of queuing will be lower overall and will be evenly spread as between men and women.

So, the rational, efficient, egalitarian approach favours gender-neutral facilities.

You do know those unused male facilities are probably about 80% urinals.
I don't think many women will want to use them, especially the ones that aren't for individuals.

And because males are more efficient at taking a piss we are now to be punished?
All for the rational, efficient, egalitarian approach?
No you lost me at efficient.

silverharp

not having a good trip by all accounts, he also made the ever-so-slight faux pas of inviting a Sikh extremist (who was found guilty of trying to assassinate an Indian minister) to dinner.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/canadian-pm-trudeau-mocked-for-political-fashion-blunders-in-india-2018-2

On CTV, a major Canadian news broadcaster, the host Don Martin said, "If this is Trudeau putting Canada 'back' on the world stage, we should get off."

Trudeau's hometown paper, the Ottawa Citizen, compared Trudeau's India trip to George H.W. Bush's 1992 trip to Tokyo, where Bush vomited on Japan's prime minister.

"As for what 'the work, achievements and objectives' of this cavalcade of embarrassment might amount to, it would have been better, in hindsight, if Trudeau had gone to India alone, invited himself to dinner with Modi, and thrown up in his lap," the Citizen wrote.

recedite

Prominent Indian personalities expressed their distaste for Trudeau's dress, with India Today calling it "tacky." Trudeau showed up at an event full of Bollywood stars in full traditional dress, while the movie stars themselves simply wore black suits.



On social media, popular Indian personalities put it more bluntly, calling for Trudeau to "have some chill" and calling his outfit choices "fake and annoying."

Cringeworthy

Mark Hamill

silverharp wrote: »

I'd only object if urinals were taken out, its my civil right to be able to pee standing up where ever possible

mcmoustache wrote: »

Here here. Dicks out for urinals.

Excuse the pun, but this has to be taking the piss, right?
Do you have urinals at home?
You can pee standing up at a toilet bowl.

recedite

Always useful to know what The Prophet would do in this situation.....

the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to a garden belonging to some people, and urinated standing up...
...it is possible that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did that because he was in a place where he was unable to sit down, or he did that to show the people that it is not haraam. This does not contradict the basic principle mentioned by ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her), that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) urinated sitting down, because it is Sunnah, it is not something waajib (obligatory) which it is forbidden to go against. And Allaah knows best.

https://islamqa.info/en/9790


(Just to clarify, we are not talking about Trudeau here)

bnt

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Excuse the pun, but this has to be taking the piss, right?
Do you have urinals at home?
You can pee standing up at a toilet bowl.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Especially if you ever visit someone's home in Germany: they really don't like that.

silverharp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Excuse the pun, but this has to be taking the piss, right?
Do you have urinals at home?
You can pee standing up at a toilet bowl.

urinals are quicker and more sanitary , cherry picking "egalitarianism " when the implication might be overall increase in queues doesn't make sense.

mcmoustache

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Excuse the pun, but this has to be taking the piss, right?
Do you have urinals at home?
You can pee standing up at a toilet bowl.

I was being a bit flippant but I'm quite serious.

The lack of urinals in my home isn't an issue at home - mainly because there aren't hundreds of people needing to use them.

Urinals allow for a more efficient píssing experience and so allow me to get in and out quickly.

Cubicles are about a meter in width. You can fit about two urinals per meter onto a wall. Even if we were to incorrectly assume that the time taken to use each was the same, urinals provide better throughput for the space that they occupy.

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

urinals are quicker and more sanitary , cherry picking "egalitarianism " when the implication might be overall increase in queues doesn't make sense.

I am sure there is a smell issue with urinals, which is why they are generally not installed in homes.

MrP

Peregrinus

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was being a bit flippant but I'm quite serious.

The lack of urinals in my home isn't an issue at home - mainly because there aren't hundreds of people needing to use them.

Urinals allow for a more efficient píssing experience and so allow me to get in and out quickly.

Cubicles are about a meter in width. You can fit about two urinals per meter onto a wall. Even if we were to incorrectly assume that the time taken to use each was the same, urinals provide better throughput for the space that they occupy.

But only for half the potential users. So it's plusses and minuses, efficiency-wise.

For what it's worth, where choice is unconstrained and either (a) demand is likely to be low, or (b) space is at a premium, gender-neutral facilities are, and pretty well always have been, the preferred option. Which is what leads me to think that people expressing horror, dismay, outrage, etc at the thought of gender-neutral facilities are putting it on; they've mostly coped perfectly well with gender-neutral facilities up to now.

Segregated toilets take up a lot more space. They do offer advantages - they allow for urinals, which offer (relatively modest, it has to be said) efficiency gains for the men. And, if the toilets are to be used for more than just excretion, some people may prefer segregation. In hotels, clubs, etc the men's toilets have urinals, while the women's may have space, and mirrors, for engaging in make-up touching-up, clothing adjustment, etc. Each sex might be reluctant to use these particular facilities in a shared space, so both may prefer segregated toilets.

In places where demand comes in concentrated rushes - theatres, concert halls, sporting arenas - segregated facilities are hugely inefficient, and the inefficiency burden falls on women. We chaps are well used to sauntering into the gents during the interval and attending to business with minimal or no delay, while the queue for the ladies stretches to the horizon. Arguably, in these places, if segregated toilets are to be provided, much more space should be allocated to the ladies than to the gents, but this doesn't often happen.

So, it's swings and roundabouts. Both segregated toilets and shared toilets have their advantages and disadvantages, and the balance of convenience will vary, depending on the context in which the toilets are provided.

pauldla

^^^

Swings and roundabouts are not the solution in a urination crisis. Very messy for by-standers.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Segregated toilets take up a lot more space. They do offer advantages - they allow for urinals, which offer (relatively modest, it has to be said) efficiency gains for the men. And, if the toilets are to be used for more than just excretion, some people may prefer segregation. In hotels, clubs, etc the men's toilets have urinals, while the women's may have space, and mirrors, for engaging in make-up touching-up, clothing adjustment, etc. Each sex might be reluctant to use these particular facilities in a shared space, so both may prefer segregated toilets.

In places where demand comes in concentrated rushes - theatres, concert halls, sporting arenas - segregated facilities are hugely inefficient, and the inefficiency burden falls on women. We chaps are well used to sauntering into the gents during the interval and attending to business with minimal or no delay....

I've boldified certain points you made above. It seems you have taken these to be inherently true, without bothering to give any reasons why?
How do segregated toilets take up less space? Gender neutral facilities will require each person to occupy a space with its "own front door". Urinals do not require this, so are inherently space saving.

Regarding mirrors etc... as you say "Each sex might be reluctant to use these particular facilities in a shared space" which means mirrors and wash basins may be required in each individual stall, making it just like a typical domestic bathroom ie the whole room can only accommodate one person at a time. This makes the domestic set-up extremely inefficient, as often becomes apparent during a house party.

Also it is wrong to say that when men are allowed to quickly use the mens jax, the burden of queuing then falls on women as a result. Its like saying that when tractors are not allowed drive on motorways, the cars travel easily, but at the expense of the poor tractor driver. No, the tractor goes slow anyway, because.... it is slow.

Basically, in the days when there were only two sexes, segregated facilities were by far the most efficient and space saving way of arranging things.

silverharp

you could solve it with the good old market principle that if there is a queue you are not charging enough for a scarce resource, spend a penny needs to become spend 2 euro to use a urinal 5 euro to use a cubicle

I doubt a stadium for example could function without the large banks of trough style urinals. Force everyone to use cubicles half time at matches or concerts would need to double

recedite

Trudeau again. This time he's gender-neutering their national anthem.

It’s certainly no surprise in a country whose prime minister wants to raise “feminist” sons and prefers the term “peoplekind” to “mankind,” but Canada’s national anthem has now become gender neutral.

I expect it won't be long before he/she announces to the wife that they are splitting up, and hermself is to be known as Justine instead of Justin henceforth....

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I've boldified certain points you made above. It seems you have taken these to be inherently true, without bothering to give any reasons why?
How do segregated toilets take up less space? Gender neutral facilities will require each person to occupy a space with its "own front door". Urinals do not require this, so are inherently space saving.

As against that, though, have separate toilets requires two entrances, and two circulation spaces. If you devoted the same floor area to just one common toilet, you'd have more facilities, and facilities which can be used more flexibly. Yes, urinals take up less space. On the other hand, only half your patrons can use them.

recedite wrote: »

Regarding mirrors etc... as you say "Each sex might be reluctant to use these particular facilities in a shared space" which means mirrors and wash basins may be required in each individual stall, making it just like a typical domestic bathroom ie the whole room can only accommodate one person at a time. This makes the domestic set-up extremely inefficient, as often becomes apparent during a house party.

Yes, this is a factor. If you're providing toilets where there are patrons who expect space to apply cosmetics, adjust clothing, etc, this is a factor that tends to weigh in favour of segregated toilets. But not all toilets have these facilities, or are expected to.

recedite wrote: »

Also it is wrong to say that when men are allowed to quickly use the mens jax, the burden of queuing then falls on women as a result. Its like saying that when tractors are not allowed drive on motorways, the cars travel easily, but at the expense of the poor tractor driver. No, the tractor goes slow anyway, because.... it is slow.

Yes. But if half your traffic consists of Lamorghinis and half consists of tractors, it's irrational to allocate half you roadspace to each. Each Lamborghini will be on the road for less time than each tractor, and therefore require less roadspace than the tractors.

The analogy breaks down at this point but, basically, the lesson is if men take on average only half the time that women take, and you expect equal numbers of male and female patrons, then you need twice as many facilities for the women as you do for the men. That will result in equal levels of service quality for men and for women.

recedite wrote: »

Basically, in the days when there were only two sexes, segregated facilities were by far the most efficient and space saving way of arranging things.

No, they weren't, in most cases. As already pointed out, in many situations common facilities are already the norm, and this is especially so where space is at a premium, e.g. in a small restaurant or cafe, which I think suggests your views about efficient use of space are not reflected in reality. And, in larger facilities where separate toilets are provided, it's common to find people queing for the ladies while facilities in the mens go unused, which is obviously inefficient.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

As against that, though, have separate toilets requires two entrances, and two circulation spaces. If you devoted the same floor area to just one common toilet, you'd have more facilities, and facilities which can be used more flexibly.

There's the flaw in your thinking, right there. In reality "Gender neutral" facilities will mean lots of separate toilets, not just "one common toilet". More duplication means more unused facilities. A bald guy in a bathroom equipped with a nice mirror and a hairdryer, and a queue outside the door.

Yes. But if half your traffic consists of Lamorghinis and half consists of tractors, it's irrational to allocate half you roadspace to each. Each Lamborghini will be on the road for less time than each tractor, and therefore require less roadspace than the tractors.

I've no problem with that, but you'd still be looking at segregated lanes. 3 lanes for the tractors, and one lane for the Lamorghinis. Otherwise its back to the gridlock situation.

More ladies toilets are required than mens then. I think there often are more of them provided already anyway?

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

Trudeau again. This time he's gender-neutering their national anthem.

The Canadians (not just Trudeau) have changed one line in their English version from "True patriot love in all thy sons command..." to "True patriot love in all of us command."

This line doesn't even appear in the (original) French version.

But conservatives are outraged that everyone should be included...

Hotblack Desiato

Help help I'm being oppressed. :rolleyes:

recedite

Faux Fur turns full circle as some vegans have been horrified to discover their trendy hats were made from fake faux fur.

Investigators' next port of call is west London's Shepherd's Bush Market, where one trader selling trendy pom pom hats insisted: 'I wouldn’t sell [the hat] if it was real because I love animals.
'The thought of an animal being killed just to put a bobble on you.'
But after extensive testing, the bobble hat was found to be made from mink - with traces of cat.
When confronted over the findings, shop owner Tracy Wheeler - a self-described 'staunch animal lover' - replied: 'I honestly didn’t realise it had real fur in it at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5372917/Markets-selling-faux-fur-items-turn-REAL.html

My handy tip if you own one of these hats and want to know if the fur is real; set fire to it, and if the fibres are real fur it will smell like burning hair, but if synthetic they will shrink back into melted plastic.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Faux Fur turns full circle as some vegans have been horrified to discover their trendy hats were made from fake faux fur.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5372917/Markets-selling-faux-fur-items-turn-REAL.html

My handy tip if you own one of these hats and want to know if the fur is real; set fire to it, and if the fibres are real fur it will smell like burning hair, but if synthetic they will shrink back into melted plastic.

The hat equivalent of the witch trials!

MrP

silverharp

are we close to peak first world problems yet?

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10692

A University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor warns in a new academic journal article that "digital manspreading" is a form of "online misogyny" that silences female scholars.

A feminist professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is warning against “digital manspreading” on the Internet, calling it a form of “online harrassment.”

Brandi Easter, a doctoral candidate who also teaches literature classes, argues in the March issue of Feminist Media Studies that “digital manspreading” happens because men are socialized to “take up space”—not just on public transit, but online too.

"This silencing calls for feminist scholars to attend seriously to the everyday spatial, material, and embodied structures and forces of online misogyny." Tweet This

Digital manspreading, she explains, “is an act of privilege, entitlement, and toxic masculinity” due to the fact that men’s interactions with “online space, made through the affordances of digital infrastructures, are gendered, material, and embodied.”

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

are we close to peak first world problems yet?

Not anywhere close, if campusreform has anything to do with it at least. A quick look through the stream of semi-literate, angst-ridden stories on the front page suggests that the website has been designed specifically to denigrate universities and looking at the backgrounds of the people apparently behind the website, that wouldn't come as a huge surprise. One can only guess as to where the site gets the money to unearth this seemingly endless stream of "leftist" scandals.

Anyhow, the document announcing "digital manspreading" seems to be a radfem response to a 4chan hoax and a complete waste of money, time and effort:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447335?journalCode=rfms20&

Hard to see these two sides as anything other than trolls trolling trolls.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Not anywhere close, if campusreform has anything to do with it at least. A quick look through the stream of semi-literate, angst-ridden stories on the front page suggests that the website has been designed specifically to denigrate universities and looking at the backgrounds of the people apparently behind the website, that wouldn't come as a huge surprise. One can only guess as to where the site gets the money to unearth this seemingly endless stream of "leftist" scandals.

Anyhow, the document announcing "digital manspreading" seems to be a radfem response to a 4chan hoax and a complete waste of money, time and effort:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447335?journalCode=rfms20&

Hard to see these two sides as anything other than trolls trolling trolls.

in the scheme of things the rad fems have access to the media are often employed in colleges etc. if they are behind academic bilge , it should be pointed out and laughed at. This nonsense can end up in the classroom in some form or other

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

if they are behind academic bilge , it should be pointed out and laughed at.

Couldn't agree more. And if the site were funny in the slightest way, I'd be laughing with you.

But campusreform is not a satirical or humorous website. Instead, on a quick look down through the front page, it seems to have been created specifically to denigrate universities and what they refer to as "leftists" and, structurally, fits in well with lots of other similar conservative websites which form part of a network which generate what is essentially propaganda, while giving little if any indication of where the money comes from to keep the mills running hot.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. And if the site were funny in the slightest way, I'd be laughing with you.

But campusreform is not a satirical or humorous website. Instead, on a quick look down through the front page, it seems to have been created specifically to denigrate universities and what they refer to as "leftists" and, structurally, fits in well with lots of other similar conservative websites which form part of a network which generate what is essentially propaganda, while giving little if any indication of where the money comes from to keep the mills running hot.

but there are problems on US campuses , It doesn't bother me who is behind campus reform , if they highlight some silliness in academia, good for them, if it was all good there shouldn't be anything for them to find