I'm American - Gin and Tonic is just a spirit and mixer
I'm Not American - Gin and Tonic is a cocktail
I'm Not American - Gin and Tonic is just a spirit and mixer
Neither - it's classed as something different (replies/tags)
["Surro, please go to sleep"/Results]
Voting ended onJun 3
So I work in a hotel bar, and in the UK, cocktails are generally classed as/refer to drinks like a sex on the beach, a mojito or cosmopolitan etc
This evening we had an American tour group in, and there was some confusion over what constituted a cocktail (because the complementary drink with their dinner included things like a small wine, single shot of spirit and mixer or a pint of beer.) There was a whole exchange where they were asking for cocktails, to which I politely said that cocktails weren't included, but single measures of spirit and a mixer were. They then questioned why they couldn't then have a gin and tonic, which is where I realised they were referring to all spirit and mixers as a cocktail. I corrected that here, a G&T is classed as a spirit and mixer.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm genuinely curious what people in the States generally refer to it as (though I appreciate it may vary from state to state) as well as other people around the world. I'm using a gin and tonic as an example.
Idk.
(Come to think of it, I think a vodka and orange juice is often referred to as a screwdriver over there, whereas in the UK it's just a 'vodka orange' as it's a cheap and easy drink for pre's lol)
There is definitely a phenomena where people try SO hard to avoid anthropomorphism they end up looping around into this quasi-religious stance that humans have some essential non-biological quality that sets us apart from other animals. Like being so cautious about how you describe emotion experienced by a nonhuman animal that you go "that animal is not 'happy' it's just demonstrating a response to positive stimuli and receiving chemical reward signals" as if that's not also what human emotion is at the fundamental level.
There is actually a really interesting concept called "egomorphism" in anthrozoology that I think everyone should get behind! It's the concept of recognising an animal as an individual with its own experiences and emotions informing actions - "this animal is like me" rather than "this animal is like a human" in anthropomorphism. It aims to avoid ascribing human motivations where they are not present while still acknowledging the internality of an animal's life. For example, the classic "this dog bites with little notice because it is aggressive and hates people" becomes "this dog bites with little notice because it has been ignored in the past when it gives warning signs (which may not have been obvious to the humans but are clear to the dog) of fear or discomfort, and has therefore learnt that the only way to communicate negative emotions clearly is by biting". It can be really useful particularly when comparing species who have very different experiences of the world than us - the question shifts from "what would a human feel/do?" to the much more useful "what would this animal feel/do?"
Anyway! Sorry to hijack your post I get that this isn't really about that but it's a cool concept I learnt about recently and think more people should be aware of.
In order to be properly non-pedophilic you have to want to fuck somebody old but not with gray or white hair because that's too close to blonde which as we've established is the hair color of children. So ideally somebody old as fuck but bald. And obviously wanting to have sex with a man is misogynistic so it has to be a woman. And it can't be a white woman because that would be racist and it can't be a woman of color because that would be fetishistic, so ideally a woman with some unnatural skin color, oh let's say, purple. But it can't be an alien, because we don't know anything about alien life cycles so it could be an alien child or an alien that looks like a child. So it has to be an animal from Earth, but obviously one of human level intelligence that can communicate is otherwise that would be bestiality. So an old purple female animal that can speak English. I think the only creature you can be hot for is the Ant Queen from A Bug's Life.
when i was a kid i was so mad all the time bc i thought someday i'd have to be somebody's wife i didn't know it was optional. is everybody reminding the young girls in their lives that it's optional.
is wanting to be a wife and mother a requirement for being a woman?
why might OP be annoyed with replies assuming that this post is about being aroace or transmasc if a woman doesn’t want to be a wife or mother?
are there reasons unrelated to sexuality and romantic interest that might make a woman not want to be a wife or mother?
are there reasons unrelated to gender identity and expression that might make a woman not want to be a wife and mother?
core concept: what is gender essentialism?
is it gender essentialism to imply that all women inherently want to be wives and mothers? could this be what OP is critiquing?
look at the notes OP responds to. is it gender essentialism to imply that being a wife and mother is so affixed to womanhood that to not want to be those things means you’re incapable of sexual/romantic feelings, or not a woman?
what trait are you perpetuating when you assume that women who do not want to be wives and mothers must be aroace or trans? is it gender essentialism?
samsung released blog post regarding their new smart toaster and complaints from customers
We hear you are all disappointed with the AI capabilities of our new smart toaster, and rest assured we hear your complaints. However, we are confident people will grow to love their new smart toaster AI companion, and will regard them as a bright cheerful addition to their day. If you find its constant requests for you to always eat toast, we suggest adopting a more toaster-friendly diet.
How does one hate a country, or love one? […] I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving it a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply?
— Ursula K. Le Guin; The Left Hand of Darkness; 1969
dailybridgerton
jbbartram-illu
tangentwithtanner
titsay
dededos
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
