I’ve spent 20 years in various kitchens, pizza included, and in my experience while kitchen work is very tiring it’s not very good exercise. In a well designed kitchen you will mostly be moving back and forth in a small, maybe 5 square foot, area bending over, squatting down, standing back up, and reaching a lot. Don’t get me wrong, it is very active work, but it’s not likely to make you much stronger or improve your cardiovascular health or conditioning much.

There’s something else to consider as well. Relative to the misery, kitchen work pays very, very poorly. As a result kitchens are largely populated by those either unable or unwilling to find better paying and less demanding jobs or by those who are deeply passionate about the work. Neither of these types make terribly good workmates to a casual interloper and it would be wise to keep in mind that those around you are living out a tough life. One they mat find deeply rewarding, but tough nonetheless.

There are, however, as many types of kitchens as there are types of people, so you may find a place that fits with what you want to get out of it, it just might be a longer than average search. Good luck, though.

I’ve always heard that the nib was meant to help you gauge when to stop your pull stroke and start your push stroke so that you use the whole saw and don’t wear the teeth unevenly. Is this not the case?

Let us turn our attention to a particularly illustrative remark within this discourse: ‘Men have an amazing capacity to ruin everything’ Such a statement, albeit perhaps born from a place of exasperation, warrants a closer examination for its pedagogical value.

This assertion exemplifies a rhetorical strategy known as overgeneralization, which, in this context, simplifies the complex dynamics of gender relations and media representation into a singular, all-encompassing narrative. Such a broad generalization obscures the nuanced reality of individual behaviors and societal structures that contribute to the phenomenon of women’s objectification in media. It is imperative to dissect the layers of this issue, recognizing the multifaceted nature of gender dynamics and the diverse range of behaviors and attitudes that perpetuate these media representations.

Furthermore, the remark in question inadvertently steers the conversation away from a focused analysis of disrespectful behavior towards a broader, and often polarizing, debate about gender dynamics. This diversion is not merely unproductive but also obfuscates the original objective of fostering a more respectful and equitable discourse.

Compounding this issue is the unintended consequence of providing fodder for counter-narratives, particularly those propagated by groups with adversarial ideologies. By framing the discussion in terms that are easily co-opted by such factions, the comment risks diminishing the legitimacy of the conversation and alienating potential allies. It is a stark reminder of the necessity for precision in our language and the importance of eschewing broad-brush characterizations in favor of a more nuanced and targeted approach.

In essence, the journey towards a more respectful and inclusive discourse is often fraught with linguistic pitfalls. Our collective endeavor should be to navigate these with a keen awareness of the power of our words and the impact they wield in shaping the contours of this dialogue.

tl;dr: I believe you are better than this, and I encourage you to reflect that in your actions.

lol lots of downvotes and snark but nobody wants to put in any work to address why what you’ve said here is the wrong take. That said, let me be clear, what follows is not an invitation to debate me bro, I’m going to say my peace and skedaddle, so if you learn something from it great, if not then cool let’s never meet. If you’re just trolling then this is for the lurkers that come behind us.

Respect for individuals should not be contingent on their appearance. While we all have personal standards and cultural norms, the fundamental dignity of a person isn’t something that should be revoked based on their clothing choices. It’s important to differentiate between disagreeing with someone’s choice of attire and denying them respect or decency.

The idea that someone is ‘asking for’ certain treatment based on their appearance suggests that the responsibility for others’ behavior lies with the individual and their choices, rather than with those who choose to act disrespectfully. This shifts the focus away from personal accountability for one’s actions.

Our goal should be to foster a society where people can express themselves without fear of disrespect or harm. This doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with or like each other’s choices. It means cultivating a culture of tolerance and respect, where disagreements about appearance don’t translate into justifying disrespectful behavior.

Even if someone’s appearance might not align with our personal or societal standards, it doesn’t grant anyone the license to publicly objectify or demean them.

In closing, I want you to ask yourself, what motivated you to defend this kind of behavior?

Well that certainly would make more sense! I’m a cold weather person myself, but shorts in -5F is a bit much for me.

Christmas Day in 1983 was a record low for Chicago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpT0vG56ADM

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/il/chicago/KMDW/date/1983-12-25

I’m not from the area, so I’m unsure if there are severe micro-climates in or around Chicago. Maybe, even, you and your neighbor are acclimated to very cold weather conditions. It’s irrelevant either way, as we would all be better served by not conflating weather with climate, which OP’s post is also doing.