the only other thing i can think of is that the idiots don't know the difference between coal and charcoal.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-coal-and-charcoal

hi.

i told you my name was jason, and that is legally correct, and thus the right answer in context, but i'm also transgendered and thus communicate informally as jessica. basically, i still need to sign things like leases and rent checks as jason...

as mentioned, i had been finding the second-hand smoke moving downstairs to be an increasing nuisance and had taken various steps to counter it. the issue comes and goes with the weather, often reaching the worst states in sudden weather shifts that increase the temperature gradient. so, it was really bad on that night last week where it dropped 30 degrees over night. the stubborn refusal for spring to set in is making the problem linger.

i've put a couple of fans at the foot of the stairs, and while it helps to keep it away from the very front of the door on all but the worst days, it's not good enough.

the next thing i tried was some open vinegar, and it had a larger effect. but, i wanted to make use of some carbon, as well, as it is very effective at adsorbing odors.

so, last night, i placed about $8.00 worth of coal around the front of the lobby. it was portioned out into used plastic strawberry containers and also into used, hole-y socks. the coal was in out of the way places, and it is very hard to believe that it was bothering anybody.

briefly, and i don't understand it perfectly myself, but coal is a very strong adsorbent because it has 4 open electrons (it's adsorbent properties can be increased by increasing it's surface area). so, volatile compounds (with open hydrogens) stick to the coal when they come into contact with it. the purpose of the coal was to clear the air of second hand smoke.

coal filters are also used for drinking water and in air furnaces. your father no doubt has a coal filter in his unit. some cigarette brands also use coal in their filters. so, coal is widely used for this purpose, and seen as of no harm to human health - unlike second hand smoke, which is known to cause a wide number of illnesses.

apparently, the tenants upstairs complained about the coal. the claim appears to be that it upset their stomach, but this is frankly absurd given everything in front of us, including their habit of heavy smoking. does filtered water upset their stomach? does air from the furnace upset their stomach? does the filter on their cigarette upset their stomach? i think that what is closer to the truth is that the sight of the coal hurt their feelings. while i understand that smokers have the right to smoke, they also need to understand that their actions cause harm to others and that their feelings cannot be the dominant priority, here.

the coal was then removed by **** in an angry fit of irrational rage. he also unplugged my fan, which i've since plugged back in.

the reality is that coal was a non-invasive solution to the problem of second-hand smoke, and i am going to insist that some kind of carbon filter be installed to absorb the pollution and purify the air in the lobby. in my mind, i even think that they are obligated to pay for it, but i will not push the point - although i would like **** to give me my $8.00 back for the coal that was thrown away.

moving forwards, i would like to sit down and have a discussion about ways to clean the air in the lobby that includes the upstairs tenants and balances their presumably aesthetic concerns with my health concerns. i thought the coal was a non-invasive way to clear the air. but, i picked coal because it was cheap. if there is some aversion to coal because it hurts their feelings or makes them embarrassed when they see it, perhaps we can mount some furnace filters on the wall or find some other way to install some carbon in the area to bind to the pollutants and suck them out of the air. i'm not picky about *how* the carbon is placed, but i am insistent that it *is* placed and do not think there is any serious grounds to oppose it, other than refusing to acknowledge the effects of their smoke - which i think is unacceptable.

other than requesting that **** refund me for the coal he discarded, i would prefer a collaborative approach at this time to a confrontational one and will leave it at that.

considering the context, maybe i shouldn't answer the question of whether or not i've had (consensual) sex in the women's toilets or not.

:P

in fact, i was so drunk i can barely remember it. but, i do remember that i wasn't initiating.

you guys have got this thing backwards, i'm telling you.

i'm not going to follow this story further, but i just want to bring to everybody's attention that tomi lahren will be 25 in less than six months.

that's like, 93, in airheaded-bimbo years.

there's a serious discussion here, but i'm not doing it.

so, obviously the whole transphobia thing is a divide and rule tactic by the elite, who are looking for a minority group to attack. how many practicing muslims do you expect to rally against transphobia? and how many do you expect to align with the conservative groups that are otherwise out to get them?

here's the frustrating thing: the conservative muslims will do everything they possibly can to find common cause with the conservative christians, and yet the christians will never budge on their attacks on them. the conservative christians are more interested in converting the queer folks, because underneath everything else they're white supremacists, too. and, while a certain segment of useful idiots on the left will continue to reach out to them, the muslims are never going to budge an inch, either. it's the most dysfunctional love triangle you can imagine: muslims chasing christians, who are chasing queers, who are chasing muslims.

don't look at me, man, i'm just watching from a distance and writing down what i see in front of me. you don't get anywhere shooting at scribes; i don't make reality, i just observe it.

anyways.

this is what it is: an attack for political gain. and, we know that it works. but why does it work? are the religious really that stupid and ignorant, or is there something else going on?

my observation is that you get the most push back from men, for some reason. it's not that women never care, but they don't get angry so much as they get annoyed. now, i'll acknowledge that i only have my own experiences, and my own experiences are that of an attractive, androgynous white person. but, i've never had a woman yell at me or express any notion of feeling unsafe. i've only ever had women give me bitchy looks for not being into them, or exasperated expressions that indicate frustration at the current ubiquity of metrosexuals.

but, i think that this is actually at the core of the pushback you get from men. the messaging i get from women is never that they're afraid i'm going to touch them, but sometimes is that they're annoyed that i don't want to touch them. that is what i think transphobic men are picking up on.

but, it's not just jealousy, it's a control issue. if you're a jealous, controlling male you have a constant, glaring problem in your dominance: you can't follow her into the bathroom. no matter how alpha you are, no matter how much she recognizes your superiority, she can always sneak into the bathroom and cheat on you and there's nothing you can ever do about it.

as absurd as this sounds - and is - a controlling male will never get over this. he will spend his entire life freaking out over what happens when she's in the bathroom. he will never be convinced that she's really, seriously going to come back. he will always fear that she won't.

this perpetual fear is bad enough as it is. now, the government wants to let guys into the bathroom - the very place where she can cheat on him, and he can't stop it? worse, they only want to let the cute ones in that he knows she's attracted to? what? this madness must be stopped! and right now - before she leaves him for good.

considering that women tend to be curious or frustrated, there's even some surface logic to the fear, right?

except there isn't, because we're usually not functional. it's really, honestly just a question of understanding the chemistry. once you grasp what's actually happening in our bodies, there's no basis of any fears.

notwithstanding the need to abolish the patriarchy, of course.

degenerative diseases?

riiiiiiiiight.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs

more broadly speaking, i actually think it's kind of important for queer people to declare their autonomy and pull themselves out of this kind of bourgeois coalition on the soft-left that is designed to co-opt their identity and assimilate it into something that aligns roughly with the hetero-patriarchy.

the queer movement used to be the most radical movement out there. we've lost that; we've been colonized by democrats and liberals that just want to warp us into a stable voting bloc. declaring our autonomy means escaping these conservative, christian/patriarchal ideas of marriage equality and labour rights. let the church have it's institutions; join the fight for universal health care, instead.

being queer used to mean something - it used to mean taking a stand against the establishment, of existing outside the rules and rejecting authority. we need to get that back.

we should be at the front of the anti-capitalist resistance, not complaining that some fucking church somewhere won't accept us, or that we can't get jobs working for the government.

fwiw, don't expect me to stand up for gay marriage much, either, because i actually oppose the institution of marriage altogether.

i mean, i guess if we're going to have marriage at all, it shouldn't discriminate based on gender. but if this is your issue, i'm not your ally - you'll never get much more from me than a set of weak statements.

if you want to talk about abolishing marriage as an outdated tool of patriarchal control, i'd be more likely to rally around your cause.