@Track_Shovel
throwing away all my toilet paper immediately
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
748 points (99.0% liked)
196
16224 readers
3089 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Bidet it farewell for me.
The problem with this method is that it puts far more importance on what the object is made of rather than how useful it is to keep around.
Day 1 on using this method and I've tossed away all my electronics and food, sitting in an empty apartment with a ton of linen.
Interesting... I can't think of a single non-disposable thing that I wouldn't clean rather than throw away though, so maybe I only have good stuff??
I mean I've got some magazines that would be awful to clean, but I'll get around to reading them eventu--oh omg it works. I'm recycling my old magazines!
Oh this explains why I never got rid of my kids.
Other people: Nope
I CAN CONFIRM THIS WORKS
A few years back I was away for a while and came back to a nasty mouse infestation. When faced with the prospect of deep cleaning and sanitizing items, it made it WAY easier to get rid of stuff that I didn't CRITICALLY need.
Anything important I put in the work, anything not got tossed. I was able to cut back significantly.
Also gave me an excuse to spend a bunch on storage - everything is now stored in clear sealed plastic bins with labels - and left me with enough trauma that I'm now quite vigilant about cleaning :P
Hey look it's me with cockroaches! (It's fun sharing walls with households that have cockroaches. Sharing is caring.)
I like simpler items with fewer parts now.
I had a similar situation with a mould infestation, and I agree that a side effect of something like that is that deciding what to keep and what not becomes generally easier, what it doesn't help with unfortunately is the actual task of sorting, which with executive dysfunction and chronic fatigue is a mountain of itself 😭
- start cleaning the object
- lose interest halfway through
- put it aside to finish cleaning it later
- ...
In this world, people declutter their house not by silly things like: sentimental weight, utility, or decoration. But by if its had shit on it. Yes my dented pan has been shit in, and my used vitamin bottles may have been pissed in, but not shit in so its staying right where it is.
By this logic, get rid of all your food and clothing. You can't get poop stains out of most clothing and obviously you're not going to risk eating food that had poop on it.
Also, go ahead and keep your litter box tools forever.
You will most likely also toss your tooth brush, makeup, hair brush, and any book you own.
The toilet paper would also be ruined
And the isolation in the walls!
Huh what kind of bloody shit do you expel? If poop stains don’t come out new parents would go bankrupt from buying baby clothing.
The sun is a deadly laser... For poop stains
That just makes the poop dry up
Scrape. Spot clean by hand with soap. Machine wash. Hang in full sun for the minimum of 1 day. Extra points for rotating to face the sun as it moves.
Source: mum to young child
Why is there shit on all your food and clothes?
the food is simple, FDA regulations stipulate a minimum that is above zero for things like animal feces, and also just animals in whole.
What an odd thing to say.
This guy poops
you seem to have very vile poop
Hahahahaha.. what a great joke! I'm totally not gonna adopt this reasoning in the future, for the rest of my life.
Let us model the poop rule as a predicate keep that maps the set of real world objects to {true, false} and a function poopy that maps the set of real world objects to the set of real world objects with poop on them.
For all x, keep(poopy(x)) = keep(poopy(poopy(x))), thus we can say that poopy is idempotent under keep.
Further, poopy is injective because there exist distinct x and y such that keep(poopy(x)) ≠ keep(poopy(y)). The proof by example is that you would keep a poopy million dollar bill, but you would not keep a poopy poop.
Your model is lacking in one area - poopy() has an inverse poopwash() where for some set of poopy objects Y, poopwash maps Y to a subset of the set of real world objects, but there exists a set of poopy objects Z for which poopwash maps Z to a subset of poopy objects.
My initial instinct was to suggest that for all z in Z, keep(z) = false, however I believe your million dollar example runs counter to this. Nonetheless, I suspect there is a useful subset of Z, let's say S, for which we can say, for all s in S, keep(s) = false.
Joke's on you, I have too much climate anxiety to throw anything out. I practically wash my toilet paper rather than flushing it.
This your blog?
Also bidet gang spray up
SPRAY UP BOIII
Honestly love bidet. Get one nerds
I'm spraying right now.
It mostly depends on the surface of the item, not its value. Clothes and anything lined in fabric is gonna be toss, but you'd just replace it. Most things made of metal or are very glossy will be kept.
You throw away all of your undies?
Only once they're full
At first there constrictive, but then they become a part of you.
Mine keeps leaking through holes. Gotta patch em all
I would just throw clothes into the washing machine and maybe set it to a more thorough setting. Fabric lined would be a small steam cleaner with some enzyme cleaning spray until the water was clear and the staining was gone.
I've cleaned up too much dog poop to be overly concerned at this point.
view more: next ›