The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Which gets thrown into the Christians' faces whenever said Christians complain about the actions of people more pathetic than themselves. And the Christians capitulate.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Some instances (almost always of non-affiliated / non-students outside of campus grounds) do not allow you to impugn a whole protest movement.
I can certainly impugn the whole protest movement, since it is a whole.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Regular lefties think the vegetarians are morally superior, the actual vegetarians think the vegans are morally superior. So the scolding works, and if you don't provide vegetarian or vegan options it is you who is in the wrong, and pushing that to providing meat when there are vegans present isn't that hard. Whereas if you don't provide meat, the meat eaters are in the wrong for complaining.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
The normative "peace protestor" wasn't pledging allegiance to the USSR, but they were doing the Soviet's bidding just the same. Different players, same playbook.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
6d ago
Yep. When push comes to shove, most American Jews will prefer siding with Hamas over siding with Republicans. They'll try to win the fight for the left, but they won't defect to the right.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
5d ago
Once you realize that most people lack intellectual standards or believe in the principles they claim each week, you can go looking for the people who actually do.
I don't recall that working out well for Diogenes.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4d ago
You know how I said this is all planned? This is all planned. The actual students ("useful idiots" in Cold War parlance) are just being used (with the connivance of the media) to put a sympathetic face on a movement run by well-funded professional protestors.
The operative part of Title IX is
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It is possible, though unlikely, that the Supreme Court will find that a large part of the enormous edifice of regulation hung off of this simple statement is a violation of the major questions doctrine. It is more likely that specific regulations will be struck down as having no statutory basis. But if the regulations are upheld, there's no way nullification will be accepted.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
He was right about Democrats aRe the Real Racists; the problem with DR3 isn't that it's wrong but that it's useless. He was wrong about everyone on the right whose tactics or beliefs he disliked actually being a progressive leftist, even if he got a few right merely by coincidence.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3d ago
There was a lot of grumbling about Title IX before that, mostly about how it either hurt men's sports programs (because if they couldn't get enough women in the women's programs, the men's programs had to be cut) or how it resulted in lavishing money on tiny women's sports programs. But I don't think it was considered fundamentally illegitimate (as opposed to wrong-headed) until the Dear Colleague letters.
None of that is the actual rule. This is the actual rule:
If a recipient adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student's eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity, such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.
ETA: The Supreme Court (and lower courts) should look at this, look at Title IX, note there's nothing in Title IX about gender identity, and throw out this regulation as lacking statutory basis. But they won't; they'll save it with deference if nothing else.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
That's why I'd choose "bear". If I'm out in the woods I don't want to hear someone yapping away, or worse playing music through speakers or overly-loud headphones.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2d ago
I'm definitely a misanthrope. But the question (and my answer) is kind of silly, IMO. It's a forest; in many such bears are kind of expected. Being "stuck in a forest with a bear" is just being "stuck in a forest".
But also you don't have to be a misanthrope to not want to have to hear people-noises when you're hiking in the woods.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
You can poke fun at women two, though it's different kinds of jokes.
Not if there are any around.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
we're kind of fucked if we don't resolve the sex war.
Well, not fucked, really.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
Cultured meat has been a staple of the tech-futurist utopian memeplex for years, if not decades.
And a staple of SF for longer than that... but in many SF settings, the vat-grown stuff is considered inferior.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1d ago
For that matter, if it's so much worse, there's no need to ban it.
Except that it steals a march on those who would ban the real animal stuff in favor of it.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
15hr ago
I would kill for a nice porterhouse.
You have that option, though it's quite difficult given the other work involved. Or you can just buy the ones where someone else has done the killing and all the rest for you. If you'd (literally) kill for a decent steak, there's no reason to be a vegetarian.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
15hr ago
The light-bulb playbook as well.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
15hr ago
But the whites don't have it any better, and that's what's important, right?
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
12hr ago
Black bears are definitely not afraid of people. As @SlowBoy notes, they're not very interested in us, usually. You can walk right by one hiking and not even know it. When they do get interested it's bad news of course.
Brown/grizzly bears are more interested in people, or at least vehicles; I've never had the misfortune to encounter one when not in a vehicle. But they're not afraid either.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
10hr ago
Personally I would have annexed Gaza (and the West bank too for good measure) and made everyone there a citizen.
Now the next time you have an election the Palestinian party wins and all the Jews get expelled or killed. Game over. Thank you for playing Middle East Peace, please come back soon.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9hr ago
Because I've seen enough cases where having the wrong type of person present acts as a barrier to inclusion (which is supposed to be good and proper and what everybody wants).
If having the wrong type of person present acts as a barrier to inclusion, then "inclusion" taken seriously is self-defeating and should be discarded as a concept. If having one type of person present discourages other types of people, you must make a choice of which to include and which to exclude; this is not "inclusion" but "discrimination".
Which is why the protesters wave the flag of Hamas and chant about how Jews should go back to Poland.
The fact that there are foolish Jews who cleave to their enemies does not change this.
More options
Context Copy link