Top products from r/DAE

We found 19 product mentions on r/DAE. We ranked the 41 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/DAE:

u/ProlapsedPineal · 3 pointsr/DAE

Humility is strength. If in a social situation I meet someone who clearly has to puff out their chest and draw attention to what a powerful person they want me to think they are, they look foolish, boring, and childish to me, as well as to others.

If that person actually was someone I should respect I'll know it not by how hard they pound their chest but how they carry themselves, the company they keep, and by the respect they show others.

If someone's strongest card is to act like a prick, they don't have much of a hand at all. If someone has real confidence they aren't intimidated by anyone and can afford to be polite and courteous, even to the pricks, because they don't really matter.

Edit because without followup this post doesn't give you much to work with. It might sound silly to you but I'd challenge you to pickup Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. Make it a bathroom reader.

The name sounds much more manipulative than the approach is, it's really a manual on how to get the response I think you're looking for from people while building bridges, not by intimidation or being crass.

u/upagainst · 2 pointsr/DAE

I'm not a huge fan of his film appearances, but I'm definitely a big fan of his stand-up comedy. Maybe you should start out there and it might give you a better appreciation of his talent.

Live at The Purple Onion (DVD 2007)

u/AtaxicZombie · 1 pointr/DAE

Yeah sounds and looks most like eczema, there are several treatments most of them are prescription however unless you can get your hands on some samples. I would suggest starting off with none steroid treatments like pro-topic and/or Elidel if those don't work then more of a steroid cream is an option, there are side effects with those (thinning of the skin). So your best option is to see a dermatologist.

However you can try to keep your skin healthy with lotions and ointments. My favorite lotion is Eucerin I use it it when I get out of the shower (always pat dry never rub) and on my hands when they are dry, you can pick it up at a Walmart or Target if you live in the US. You can also go over to the travel size products and pick up a small bottle of lotion i like the Aveeno also a great lotion one and refill with preferred lotion when needed to have a travel bottle. The other product I swear by is Aquaphor it is a ointment kind of like a petroleum jelly. Slab that shit all over your feet or hands when they are very dry, wear cotton socks and cotton gloves while sleeping or watching TV. The gloves will get dirty and stretch just wash and dry and they will be good as new. I have several pairs floating around so I don't have to laundry every day. This helps the ointments or any medication applied to those areas the maximum effectiveness. Also it allows you to be able to do things with your hands and not get shit all over everything.

If does turn out to eczema try to avoid touching chemicals especially cleaning products wear gloves and be caution what you are sticking your hands into. Good luck with everything

Feel free to shoot me a message anytime asking questions or to talk about skin related shit.

u/robertbayer · 3 pointsr/DAE

No. While there may be many things wrong with American society, there is absolutely no valid historical parallel between American society in 1960 and American society in 2011 that would predict the emergence of mass social movements. The causes for the New Left and the sixties were many, and almost none of those causes are shared today:

  • Frustration with a culture of political repression (the McCarthy era) and general conformity.
  • A decade-long economic boom, which allowed, for the first time, a critical mass of Americans to consider issues less directly pertinent to their lives. You don't have much time, energy, or interest in the morality of a war or the ethics of an existing social system when you're barely scraping together enough money to eat.
  • A pre-existing mass social and political movement which had involved millions of Americans and already laid much of the groundwork for much of the later movements (from the New Left, to the feminist movement, to the gay rights movement), almost all of which had direct connections to the African-American civil rights movement, which exposed people to the systemic violence, widespread poverty, and racial injustice throughout the South.
  • There was a high level of political capital and engagement. In the 1960s, political campaigns depended almost entirely on a volunteer staff, and were much cheaper to run. More people voted, more people attended places of religious worship on a regular basis, more people were involved in local organizations (from the local bridge club to the PTA to the bowling league). This meant that not only were people aware of what was going on in the world -- it meant that they trusted each other more, and they trusted government more. If you look at the 1960s, people wanted the government to fix problems in their lives; ever since Watergate, trust in government and other Americans has plummeted.
  • There was a huge expansion in the number of university students. Between 1960 and 1975, the percent of Americans with a bachelor's degree or higher more than doubled. That's not the percentage of people attending college, that's the percentage of the total American population with a college degree, including old people. The number of MAs and PhDs granted per year tripled in that period. Numerous studies have demonstrated that people with a college education tend to be more socially liberal -- the backlash against the repressive and socially conservative society of the 1950s should therefore come as little surprise as this new generation of young Americans entered the workforce.
  • There was also a huge number of young people. The baby boom that followed World War II had produced a huge cohort of 18-29 year-olds -- the exact group which also tends to be the most liberal.

    The current climate is far different.

  • Until 2007, apathy was the primary defining characteristic of the American political climate. Since then, we have seen spurts of outrage or excitement, but there has been nothing akin to the political repression that we saw in the 1950s, nor do we see anything akin to the political engagement of the 1950s and 1960s.
  • Since the 1970s, the United States economy has been largely stagnant, with a brief surge of prosperity in the 1990s. In 2008, we entered the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
  • There has been no sustained mass grassroots movement since the 1960s. Attempts have been made -- the feminist movement, the environmentalist movement, the gay rights movement, &c. -- but none of these efforts were able to sustain the requisite commitment on the part of everyday people. Sure, all three of those movements remain as at least recognizable political influences in the United States today, but as insider politicos: people who raise money for candidates, who hire lobbyists, who send out mass e-mails, and who run issue ads. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is most certainly not a parallel to the groundwork and widespread radicalizing social effects of the civil rights movement.
  • No one votes anymore, no one is politically, socially, or even culturally engaged anymore. Even on college campuses, it's difficult to get people to turn out for events without bribing them with free food. Books have been written on the decline of the American public sphere (see: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community).
  • There has been little change in the percentage of Americans with a BA since the mid 1980s, and what changes have taken place has been the result of older Americans dying off. Moreover, the United States is an aging society -- hence our problems with funding social security and medicare.

    While I certainly agree that much has to change, you make the fundamental errors of assuming that it will change, that it will change rapidly, and that it will change as the result of people waking up and realizing what is going on.

    EDIT: wanted to expand some more on what I said.
u/Riipper_Roo · 1 pointr/DAE

Look up Sam Harris. He's a, if you could call it, a devout atheist. Yet is incredibly involved with the experience of spirituality. He's devoted a lot of time to meditation and mindfulness.


He literally wrote a book on mindfulness but how you can practice it in a secular sense. It's really good, if you don't want to buy the book and read it, he has plenty of clips on youtube where he talks about it.

u/jkingme · 2 pointsr/DAE

Hey, man. Although I can't personally relate to your experience, it sounds like a horrible situation. If therapy/pills/whatever hasn't worked, I have a book to suggest to you. It has helped me put my mind right in a lot of messed up areas of my life. Mindfulness in Plain English teaches you to observe the mind's habits, and to look for and address their causes. Although it is written from a Buddhist standpoint, you certainly don't have to affiliate with any belief to get a lot out of it. I hope you find happiness.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/DAE

An introductory guide would be best, as he can be quite difficult at times.

This one is good:

u/Theemuts · 1 pointr/DAE

Well, his biography is coming out next month. It will probably expanded significantly around that time.

u/Teggert · 2 pointsr/DAE

These say they're non-dairy, and I've seen them at the grocery store. Might be worth a try.

u/stokerj · 1 pointr/DAE

I am also totally dumbfounded by why some inane things have such a profound societal impact. I stumbled on this book a few years back and enjoyed it thoroughly.

u/facklestix · 2 pointsr/DAE

"Liquid Bandage / New-Skin" is quite common in the restaurant industry, especially in the kitchen.

u/technoskittles · 1 pointr/DAE

you know they make nail clippers for feet that are more straight... like this one.

Also for future reference, the real DAE forum is /r/DoesAnybodyElse/

u/hairlesscaveman · 3 pointsr/DAE

Sorta, until I read this book:

Changed my entire perspective on life. Now I'm not afraid of much. Except pain, but that's natural and healthy. End aggressive feminists, because they're just unnatural and evil.

u/Mcheetah2 · -1 pointsr/DAE

Where do you live that bed sheets are only four dollars?! Also, ghosts are used to support the white heteronormative patriarchy and have been deemed racist, mmm'kay? ^^^^/s

u/wahoowa0711 · 103 pointsr/DAE

/edit: Originally posted on the other article, but I wrote a lot, so I'm reposting.

/edit2: Read The Graves Are Not Yet Full if you're interested in African issues. From Publisher's Weekly:

>"This is a book about evil." With these words, Berkeley launches into a gripping exploration of some of the worst African atrocities of the past 20 years, which he has covered as a journalist for the Atlantic Monthly and other publications. Focusing on several flash points the genocide in Rwanda, the political violence in Zaire and South Africa's apartheid killings, for instance he avers that the violence that has permeated these societies is born of the same evil that motivated Hitler to kill six million Jews: racially and ethnically based tyranny, which, he says, is the result of Western colonization, not "age-old" hatreds. Berkeley is at his best when he is reporting; he conducted interviews with African leaders, such as Liberia's Charles Taylor, with ordinary people and with high-level American officials involved in formulating African policy, like former Assistant Secretary of State Chester A. Crocker. He is particularly effective at pointing out the links between longstanding Western attitudes and policy and Africa's atrocities ("Tribalism solved the colonial dilemma of how to dominate and exploit vast numbers of indigenous inhabitants with a limited number of colonial agents"), and he shows how maniacal tyrants have exploited ethnic divisions. But the reader is still left wondering how so many people could have taken part in the mass killing of their own countrymen. Though Berkeley writes that "most African tribes live side by side without conflict," the book leaves the opposite impression. (Apr. 1)Forecast: This is one of several books about Africa due out this spring. Perhaps the critical mass will turn the interest of serious readers toward that strife-ridden continent.

I just want to point out that while there may be/are concerns with the Invisible Children campaign, I feel that people should be able to donate money to any cause they see fit. I don't think they are necessarily misrepresenting the dangers of the LRA, and if you watch the video, they clearly state that the LRA has moved out of Uganda. And they also state that they want to keep advisers, not necessarily start a military intervention with the US acting unilaterally or even leading.

As for the "national" politics of Africa (which is misleading in itself, since its like referring to the national politics of North America or Asia), of course there is major stability. European (and American) nations basically made the vast majority of Africa dependent on Europe and the US in order for these African 'countries' to survive, and once these nations stepped out, they left instability in their wake. A major cause of this instability is a result of the European division of Africa into countries in way that purposefully grouped peoples that fought against each other and divided those who allied with each other. Africa did not develop with huge ethnically-identifying groups, like Europe did, but rather many, many small groups with a shared history. No wonder political/social/military strife often crosses borders nowadays -- these borders were politically and imperialistically drawn, not a result of a natural progression. One can hardly act in one country (Uganda, for example) without affecting another country, as eluded to in the wiki article for the LRA (edit: this also supports the claim that the IC does not necessarily want direct military involvement since they support this action in the video):

>On October 14, 2011, President Obama announced that he had ordered the deployment of 100 U.S. military advisors (with a mandate to train, assist and provide intelligence) to help combat the Lord's Resistance Army.[66] It has been reported that the bulk of the troops are from the Army Special Forces.[66][67] Obama said that the deployment did not need explicit approval from Congress, as the 2010 Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act already authorized "increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability". The military advisors will be armed, and will provide assistance and advice, but "will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense". The advisers will operate in South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, subject to approval by those states. The military advisors will not operate independently of the host states. Human Rights Watch welcomed the deployment, which they had previously advocated for.[68] General Carter Ham, the head of US Africa Command, said that his best estimate was that Joseph Kony was probably in the Central African Republic, not located in Uganda.

But I digress.

All of this is to say, whether or not you agree with the IC's Kony 2012 campaign, I think they have a right as a non-profit to get their message out. Of course their aim is going to be narrow and involve special interests, that's what non-profits are. As for their finances, that's up for the BBB to deal with, but people can give their money to what ever campaign they want to (look at Kanye's "charity"). And that's their choice, whether or not you agree.

I do agree that people should do their research and look into what they are supporting, but I think that one should critique the organization, not the idea. Yes, IC may be sketchy, but I think that it is important to get the word out about those committing crimes against humanity, even though it's a bit delayed (better late than never).

And by the way, the IC makes it very easy to get out the word on Kony without giving them any money (providing PDFs for free; posting the video; using social media; signing a petition) so I don't feel bad at all when I think that Kony should be apprehended for this:

>There are 33 charges, 12 counts are crimes against humanity, which include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and rape. There are another 21 counts of war crimes which include murder, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population, pillaging, inducing rape, and forced enlisting of children into the rebel ranks. Ocampo said that "Kony was abducting girls to offer them as rewards to his commanders."