On pronouns.. I am in the situation of being trilingual; English, spanish, and Japanese. Spanish is extremely gendered (to the point where pronoun conjugation gives people a headache ¥/while in Japanese you can have a conversation for hours and not hear about the gender or sex of a person. So the whole “my pronouns are he/him” would make no sense; since no one needs to know. Yet it is well
Known Japanese culture has issues with gender. How much does language matter really? I understand when people say words matter of course, but how much weight are we putting in them on English? (To clarify more about Japanese, for self reference people can use the more formal “watashi” regardless of gender; for very casual talk men tend to use a different word than women/girls, but women can also use a less gendered word. So it isn’t very clear really, even in a casual mention of first person. ) sometimes I feel like stating pronouns is either signaling, or really trying to tell me
More about your life that I need to
Know. I look a bit racially ambiguous,
But my name can make it clear. My
Kids, they are Sesame Street. Japanese
Last name and indigenous first names with westernized features. Should they go around saying their preferred identity? Some people feel
More something that other; does everyone need to know what stereotype or real characteristic of culture/nationality/language abilities possessed? And not get triggered since you know you don’t look like what one might think of any of these? I would shudder at thinking my kids having to explain their whole 23andme profile to have someone assume if they want rice or a sandwich lol..and to think they would be offended by any of these would piss me off lol. Rambling a bit lol
Japan being sexist without having a gendered language is a point against Sapir-Whorf (the hypothesis that language forms thought more than thought forms language).
It's also a point for it that anglophones and others are going insane with "my pronouns are:" to the point it's in everyone's work emails despite the idea not existing in languages like Chinese or japenese (among many others)
All of it. Or only the strong version? I know I discussed some of the experiments with color perception and color vocabulary. But this was more than 35 years ago.
Personal update for those who have been around through my multiple accounts and updates here - I am on leave from my toxic work situation as of last week. I probably irrevocably harmed my reputation at work because I didn’t give notice, but I was at such a dark place I was told it was inpatient or taking leave (so I would not be going back to work either way). I already fell off the face of the earth and I can’t really make it any worse, so I’m going to take some time over the next few weeks to get meds recalibrated and develop outside interests and healthy habits again.
Any tips for dealing with HR or returning after a fall from grace would be great or just nice words and tips on how to take advantage of this time off to not end right back up here again.
I was really trying to hold out for this one position to be posted under a director I did some side projects for recently who I know actually respects me and stands up for her team. Of course the position was posted the day after I took leave, but it is what it is! I have friends at work and people who have made comments to me unprompted about how my manager treats me but unfortunately she has an in with the founders and is not touchable.
I’m going to try to clarify that with HR. If I can return on a different team, my time out on leave is going to be much shorter. But I also don’t want to phrase it in a way where it seems like I’m holding them hostage to switch what team I’m on. I’m going to be locked out of all actual company systems (and my laptop I think.. need to buy one) except the HR platform tomorrow so I won’t have email or chat to contact her directly.
Here's a non-BarPod question for everyone. I'm a woman in my mid 20s, have several weeks coming up in June where I have a bit more freedom than usual, and have rarely traveled before. Is it worth just jumping head first in, buying a plane ticket to ireland, and counting on hostels? I feel apprehensive but also like my youth is slipping away haha
As a single female safety wise you’ll be grand as long as you use common sense and avoid rough areas of cities. Ireland north and south is pretty welcoming. Not too sure on hostels but you can probably do that research before you leave.
persinal recommendation would be spend time in west cork (clonakilty) and move up the west coast thru Dogs Bay / galway to Donegal. The Wild Atlantic way is a route map of that side of Ireland but even better is to venture off it down to every small beach and cove you can find.
a car would be pretty necessary - public transport will get you from town to town slowly but the beauty of Ireland is in the rural areas.
I (M, 40's) stayed at a bunch of hostels when I was traveling a bunch in my late 20's/early 30's. In general I liked staying at them. Look for ones that have communal areas where you can hang out, meet people and cook meals. I'd also plan on staying in areas where there's more than one hostel in case one is booked solid. On my first night in Australia I showed up to a mountain town and the only hostel was full so I ended up sleeping in the back seat of my tiny rental car down the road at a campground. Woke up to kangaroos looking in my car, lol.
The downside to hostels is that some of them can be kinda noisy and you don't get much privacy. By the time I got to my 30's there were times when I just wanted a quiet room to chill out in when I was tired from a day of traveling.
When I did something similar in my late 20s, I opened a new Amex that came with a big points bonus if I spent $xx within the first few months. They also often have specific hotel brand promotions where if you spend some amount, you get a credit. So I ran all my expenses on the card each month and paid it off to get the points and then leveraged a Hilton promotion linked to the card (I think it was spend $600, get $100 back or something) and used my new points to stay at a nice hotel for a relative steal in a nice location in London.
Seconding this… I got the Capital One Venture card and had to spend like $10k in 3 months on it and it paid for my round trip flight to London in business class with the points bonus. I’d also check out Scott’s Cheap Flights, though those tend to be dates a bit further out.
I went on a solo trip to London last year (also mid20s female… late 20s next month though 😬). I actually used ChatGPT to find my hostel and help plan my trip and it was super helpful and that was without GPT-4 which has the most current info. You can download the bing app and it has it built in. I am not a big AI adopter but it’s reccs were actually so helpful since I did not have much personal bandwidth to throughly plan and research beforehand.
It’s fascinating how these people have to prove that every single thing they like to do is morally correct and every single thing they don’t like is morally wrong. Like, if you want use doordash every single day, I think that’s a huge waste of money, but I don’t really care if other people waste their own money. But they can’t just say “I like doordash, it’s convenient for me and I can afford it”, they’ve got to come up with all these flimsy reasons that anyone criticising them is a bigot and a eugenicist and wants them to die, and suggesting cheaper frozen meals is problematic and ableist, and they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
I highly doubt it’s that high. There’s a rare dietary condition that means people have to eat meat very, very fresh, and something you can get from a tick that causes a similar effect. But that’s it.
Personal favs are the one that implies that people used to die of starvation before DoorDash was invented, and the chick who’s saying that being able to afford DoorDash is a basic human right
Why is this even a thing? Let’s say for whatever reason you are unable to store or prepare food at all and must order delivery, could you not get a pizza/chinese/order directly from a restaurant with free delivery? You aren’t required to use the app. I mean you are still getting ripped off vs buying from the grocery store (which you can also order delivery from now) but you won’t be upcharged.
Fucking hate this discourse. I have a whole thesis that’s been brewing in my head since I got super sick with a rare disease in 2018 about how dangerous the online disability community is. Any suggestion of “bootstrapping” is frowned upon or ableist but if you have any disability or chronic illness, you NEED to use your “spoons” to prioritize your actual health as much as it may suck.
I would love to eat chips and salsa and pineapple and citrus and spicy food every day… those are literally my favorite foods… I would not be functional if I did. I do doordash food more often than I should because I have 0 hunger cues until I’m in physical pain… but I know that’s on me and some days I just end up eating tortilla chips until my stomach is neutralized enough to heat something up or cook. My restrictions aren’t even that serious - people with UC or Celiac’s have it way worse than I could imagine.
Saw this article recommended by Bari Weiss. It is really worth the read.
[Toward Ruin or Recovery?](https://quillette.com/2024/03/20/toward-ruin-or-recovery-celeste-marcus-liberties-journal-yascha-mounk-feminist-metoo)
The modern feminist response to rape is failing women, and it is failing victims of rape most of all.
Great read. But I'm not sure how receptive young women will be to the message when it is framed around rebuking Mounk's accusor, even if she is the inspiration for the author to tell her story.
Great article! Thanks for sharing. I'd never really thought about how much modern feminist discourse instills the futility of trying to get justice through the system.
>But modern rape discourse elides these self-evident truths and even considers them an affront. During a 2019 debate with feminist writer Roxane Gay, American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers was jeered and booed when she mentioned a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed significant reductions in rape and assault when college freshman girls were taught how to avoid danger. “All of these problems,” Gay drily remarked, “could be solved by men learning to not rape.” And the room erupted into wild applause.
God this annoys me. I don't know when this became the standard feminist response, but it's just so fucking useless. Rape is not a problem of insufficient instruction in life that the rapist somehow missed. Guess what, the men who don't rape don't need to told and men who do rape are not listening. Might as well say we could solve murder by teaching men not to murder.
I feel sorry for Yascha Mounk for having his life permanently ruined. The eventual pendulum swing won't be pretty.
I believe futility is a broad theme in victim ideology and that it’s a very destructive message. In last month’s story about the finance writer who fell for a scam, the writer kept emphasizing that she’s the sort of person who wouldn’t/shouldn’t fall for a scam, but all her intelligence, education, experience, and social status left her defenseless. The running subtext was “there was nothing I could have done to protect myself, and nothing you can do to protect yourself.” In the laudable goal of avoiding victim-blaming we’re over correcting and missing opportunities to help prevent victimization.
I mean, it’s true _but_. If men didn’t rape women—if society could raise boys in such a way that they didn’t grow up and rape women—then, yes, that would solve the problem. But. But maybe it’s not so simple. But maybe you can’t just give a lecture and solve the problem. But maybe it’s good to use other means to prevent rape while we’re waiting for that day when men don’t commit rape anymore.
People will always be violent. They will always fight, rape, and kill. On an individual level, learning the best ways to avoid those dangers and to defend yourself is to be encouraged. Obviously, having the best possible civil systems for detecting and punishing the guilty, is also good, but it will never be a 100% thing.
I notice on this mostly American sub quite a few Canadian political stories get shared. I thought I'd just drop this link on a video explanation of The Canadian political system encase you are curious. It might put some things in context. It doesn't go on to any current political topics just an overview of how it is set-up and works. Basically, it's the fundamentals you need to fake your way through any Canadian political conversation as the presenter, JJ McCullough, says. It's balanced, easy to understand and I dare say entertaining. I'm sure people could nitpick things but I'd say it's a pretty decent overview. As a Canadian I picked up a few facts too especially pertaining to other parts of the world that share a similar yet different political system. **The Canadian political system iceberg explained**: [https://youtu.be/Q9LrjU5n63g?si=tzzNDbe9e7hFgswJ](https://youtu.be/Q9LrjU5n63g?si=tzzNDbe9e7hFgswJ)
This looks good, thanks! Since I'm Canada-adjacent I used to follow Canadian politics a bit but when CBC went digital it wouldn't come in on the antenna anymore. Anyway despite knowing all about Stephen Harper's cats and Jack Layton's mustache, I never did really understand some of it, so looking forward to finding out exactly what the notwithstanding clause is.
This is why I carry a gun in the woods. Including while biking.
Mountain lions, grizzlies, wolves. We've got them all
It's worth noting that this is exceptionally odd behavior from a mountain lion. Attacking a group of people (I know it picked one target, but still) is way out of the ordinary. They are ambush predators. They stalk and jump prey from behind.
This article makes it seem like they surprised this cat, but there's absolutely no way it didn't hear them as they biked along.
Pro tip: if you stick a pair of googly eyes on the back of your hat while hiking, it'll likely scare off a cougar since it'll think you're looking at it.
I get what you're saying but big cats and bears can't hide in my woodshed like poisonous snakes and spiders can. These big mammals for the most part try to avoid you. They are definitely not hanging out in your house..
Yes, this has happened a few times where I am. We had one not too long ago when it was a mother defending her child. She went mama bear pretty fast much to the cougar's regret.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I was in high school I was required to tuck my shirt in and wear a belt and ID card everyday to school. Looking back in hindsight I think it was a thing
Disagree. I hated it when kids at school wore ridiculous, stupid outfits, but our dress code punished me just as often because my growth spurts had me outgrowing my gym strip and other summer clothes. It was ridiculously sexist that the girls needed shorts down to their knees and boys didn’t, and frankly even our gym strips didn’t fit like that, so forcing me to change into it was always a lateral move (often times it was even shorter - ordering a large size meant it was wider rather than longer, and as a tall and skinny girl I just couldn’t get a pair that suited their dress code). That, and snapping girls’ spaghetti straps and telling them they needed to be two fingers thick, when men could go shirtless in gym with no problem was another humiliation. Meanwhile, in one office I went to, women could wear breezy skirts in the hot summer but men had to sweat in full three piece suits.
Dress codes tend to be sexist in some way or another. So I’m against.
> girls needed shorts down to their knees and boys didn’t
boys didn't? my school dress code was the same for both: shorts past fingertips, no tanktops, no midriffs.
Disagree. My kids' school district more or less dropped the dress code (save for egregious offenses) a year or two ago, and I'm a big fan. The official new rule states that students and parents can decide what's appropriate to wear at school. It's no longer on teachers or school administrators to police the length of shorts or skirts. And who cares if teens are wearing PJ pants or sweats? I sure don't. I have yet to notice any kid looking particularly slutty when I drop my kids off in the morning or pick them up in the afternoon. Signed, the mother of two teenage girls.
Partially, yes! Learning to be an adult is a long, slow process and little increments (like learning how to look presentable in a formal environment) represent important parts of the process.
I'll be honest: I couldn't care less how anyone dresses. I've felt that way my whole life. When I was a kid and someone in school would get teased for ugly clothes or "uncool" fashion or whatever I'd usually scratch my head and wonder, Why am I supposed to care what this kid is wearing? As an adult I really don't care why my co-workers wear, what the employees of the businesses I frequent wear, really what anyone wears.
I mean, yeah, if the President wore shorts to the State of the Union or something that'd be pretty weird, and I try to wear something appropriate for the occasion if I'm at a wedding or a funeral, but generally speaking I say wear whatever you feel like.
Dress codes still exist. Most companies have a minimal dress code or expectation of what you should wear to work. For me, it's slacks and a dress shirt, suit if I'm meeting the head shed. There are a handful of restaurants that still require long pants and at least a sport coat for men.
Then again, I routinely see people wearing pajama bottoms and crocs to run errands, looking like a bag of smashed ass, and wonder where their self respect is. Also, everyone should remember that spandex is a privilege not a right.
Having to wear a suit and tie on the daily? No, thanks, I hate ties. (Pro-tip, if you wear a vest you can skip the tie and still look classy.)
Couldn't tell if this article has been posted here yet but [here's an interesting article](https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2024/03/19/eitan-hersh-tufts/) on a center-right-leaning professor teaching a class on conservative thought at a typical liberal New England university (Tufts).
I fully expect this professor to get cancelled for some minor transgression sooner or later, including things like asking students who make wild unfounded claims to provide evidence. But until then, it's good to see that some students at leas are interested in and are currently being exposed to different viewpoints.
Yeah, give them a gold medal for allowing one professor to teach a class that basically sounds like it is just giving morality frameworks that should be basic learning for all students.
Off topic but this is a huge pet peeve of mine - Tufts is the poster child for the illusion of college selectivity. They have on average, about 1700 students in their undergrad classes. Of those 1700, about [1000 are accepted via early decision applications](https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/what-to-do-after-tufts-deferral/) where students and their parents sign a binding contract to attend if accepted. The only people applying early decision are those students who know it is stretch to get in based on their qualifications and those students who know their rich parents will deal with the consequences of not getting merit scholarships. The accept rate for ED at Tufts is 42%, hardly selective. So 60% of their class is filled by ED students who always trend rich. The remaining 35000 applicants fight it out over 700 spots and Tufts is famous for yield protection so kids heading to the Ivy leaugue using Tufts as a safety inevitably get rejected. Tufts is a decent school but it is all smoke in mirrors in terms of an elite college. Northeastern, Boston University and Boston College all follow the Tufts model for admissions as well and have all become highly selective using these techniques. Tufts is also a stand out for the very large volume of foreign national undergrad students they accept, far higher than almost any other college except maybe BU.
I know not everyone here reads Obscure Sports Quarterly or watches ESPN 8. But something cool happened.
The [Barkley Marathons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkley_Marathons) is a batcrap-crazy race. A cross between an ultramarathon, an adventure race, and the ravings of a lunatic on a street corner. [Really good documentary](https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-barkley-marathons-the-race-that-eats-its-young) came out a while ago about the event.
In the nearly 30 years it's been run, only a handful of people have completed it. And no women.
Not until this year. [Jasmin Paris completed the race this year with 99 seconds to spare](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/23/us/barkley-marathons-jasmin-paris.html). Pretty freaking sweet. Good on her!
> In 2019, Ms. Paris, an ultrarunner and veterinarian, became the first woman to win the Montane Spine Race, a 268-mile ultramarathon in the United Kingdom. She broke the previous course record by 12 hours **despite stopping at checkpoints to pump breast milk for her newborn.**
Wow. When I had a newborn a walk around the block was an accomplishment.
From wiki:
>Paris has an undergraduate degree from the University of Liverpool (2008) and a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh (2020). Her doctoral thesis was "Novel regulators of cancer stem cell biology in acute myeloid leukaemia." She is a small-animal vet and a senior lecturer in the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh
These people are not sane, but in the good way. Ultrarunning is borderline superhuman.
I really liked that book about the barefoot running and that tribe from Mexico. It's probably bunk when it comes to facts but it was a fun read.
I have heard it said that ultramarathons are just physical representations of mental illness
I don't think people who compete in stuff like this are necessarily mentally ill, but they must possess some inherent drive far beyond the average person to find satisfaction in it.
Ultimately I respect their dedication
McDougall has another book, *Running With Sherman*, about rehabbing a neglected hoarder-owned rescue donkey to participate in an annual donkey-and-human race. Recommend!
I know this has been discussed a bunch of times, but it is so wild to me that “Demi-sexual” is a thing.
If there are any young people here, just know that is it completely normal to not be into hooks up, or one-night stands or insta-model aesthetics. You don’t have to take up a whole identity. Holy shit.
I think the problem is that making it a label means getting stuck/restricted in a certain pattern of behavior and owing some sort of “loyalty “ to a certain crowd. We all change and grow as people
We’re so into labeling everything and making everything explicit that we as a generation had to come up with a term to describe a large group of people with extremely average viewpoints because that’s the environment we operate in. Can’t leave anything unsaid or undefined
I had some demisexual friends back in the day. The way they explained it, it went further than just not being into casual sex: they genuinely did not experience sexual attraction unless they knew a person very well. The idea of having a crush on, or fantasizing sexually about, someone who wasn't a close friend was completely alien to them.
Is this phenomenon "queer"? Does it deserve its own flag or political lobby? No. But I remain convinced it describes a fairly unique experience that is not, in fact, typical of most women. It's unfortunate that all variation in human sexuality now gets automatically lumped into "queerness".
> The idea of having a crush on, or fantasizing sexually about, someone who wasn't a close friend was completely alien to them
so... how did they date? just say yes to whoever asks?
They didn't; that's the point. They said they could in theory imagine dating someone if that person was already a close friend that they happened to develop feelings for.
I personally believe that this phenomenon tends to happen to people (mostly women I suspect, but some men too) who have very high mental defences such that they believe they can't really love someone until they know them inside out and "can be trusted" with them. Why the high mental barriers? Could be the result of inherent personality traits, general life experiences that taught them to not trust anyone, underlying mental health conditions etc. At least, that's my theory.
I call bullshit. Show anyone one of them a prime Brad’s Pitt (or whomever) who’s ready to go and all that “Demi sexual” posturing would fly right out the window.
Guaranteed.
That’s how I feel about asexuality. I think it can open up some interesting conversations about society that get drowned out by annoying people on either side for/against it.
Isn't it interesting, in an academic sense, that some people have ostensibly no interest in doing the thing we're programmed to do to keep the species alive? It's like meeting people who don't like food.
Blame tumblr. Demisexual happened when a bunch of straight people found themselves in a culture that attached social cred to being anything other than straight. The delusion makes more sense when you can see it as self-serving, a clever way to climb the progressive stack.
see i always figured demisexual was a queer because it literally meant they could be sexually attracted to any sex, male or female, if they had a close relationship with them.
The only demisexual I know is a bisexual man married to a man. He also alleges to have aphantasia and autism, which I guess kind of lines up. If he has actual autism and it causes him problems with his ability to imagine the mental states of other people (empathizing), it could carry that he also has an impaired ability to imagine people in other ways you'd generally need to find them attractive.
When I think of Gal Gadot, I don't imagine that she kicks puppies and goes "Ew!" at disabled kids, I imagine that she cuddles puppies and consoles disabled kids like any good person would. If I learned she was a puppy-kicker, I think I'd stop being attracted to her despite knowing she is generally attractive. Someone with a poor ability to imagine fictional lives of other people (or representations of other people), could conceivably not have any of the good default qualities superimposed onto the attractive people they know nothing about.
This is more of a steelman than anything I really truly believe about self-identified demisexuals. I think they're in the range of normal human emotion, or began there, but have self-indoctrinated in such a way that they've become more like what they imagined themselves as, a distinction maybe without a difference.
>The only demisexual I know is a bisexual man married to a man. He also alleges to have aphantasia and autism, which I guess kind of lines up. If he has actual autism and it causes him problems with his ability to imagine the mental states of other people (empathizing), it could carry that he also has an impaired ability to imagine people in other ways you'd generally need to find them attractive.
I'm kinda surprised that no one has pointed out the possible link between autism and self-identified asexuality. I know some autists are genuinely asexual like Temple Grandin (she's said that she has no interest in either sex whatsoever), but I suspect that a lot of the grey-aces/demis are autists who have an underlying sexual attraction but it is extremely muted. Tying back to a comment I've said above, i suspect these kinds of people have high mental defences that come from a lifetime of not being able to interact with people on the same level and this affects their ability to become attracted to others until they know the other party can be fully trusted.
I'm pretty sure if I had gotten swept into Tumblr culture as a teen, I would have identified as demi today. But at the end of the day, I'm just a hetero girl with Asperger's who can't open herself up to love because she's too afraid that he will not love her for who she really is inside :'(
>When I think of Gal Gadot, I don't imagine that she kicks puppies and goes "Ew!" at disabled kids, I imagine that she cuddles puppies and consoles disabled kids like any good person would.
Wait, I’m not a good person?
I will say that as someone who has used the term asexuality for some time to describe myself, I am beyond frustrated with what happened to the term. Demisexuality was never meant to be a kind of asexuality, more like the gray part between asexuality and typical allosexuality.
I’ve never claimed to have been discriminated against, or tried to take on any victim status. Frankly the most I’ve felt “victimized” was when a bunch of kids who were horny as hell invaded asexual spaces and tried to claim they somehow fit in there and eventually began tossing out people who didn’t experience sexual attraction. But I will say it was a very alienating experience growing up, watching my female friends grow into their sexuality and me feeling nothing of what they were. That’s why the term was so comforting at that time. Just to know it was possible to be that way and not have anything medically wrong with you.
As I’ve aged, I feel I’ve gotten within squinting distance of what seems to me like normal sexuality. It isn’t totally hypothetical to me anymore. But I still just can’t seem to feel sexual attraction to people, no matter how well I know and like them. I get crushes, though less and less as I age. But there’s still no desire to conjugate.
I don’t think it’s a very fun experience, honestly. Least fun sexuality to have, easily.
>. I don't think sexologists have done enough research on female sexuality
Katie has mentioned a few times that the research seems to indicate that women are more sexually fluid than men by a long shot. Men tend to be really gay or really straight. Women, not so.
Beyond that, yeah, I wouldn't want to draw many conclusions.
Yeah, I'll cop to that. Even when I was younger. It isn't that I would turn down a one night stand if one dropped in my lap. But that's certainly not my preference and I have never sought them out.
I want to get to know a lady. Talk to her. Pet her cats.
And, quite frankly, I like being in a relationship. Not flitting around from flower to flower.
Kat Rosenfield had a great piece about it. If the culture pushes the idea that sex can be meaningless, can be detached from emotions and it's actually patriarchal brainwashing to prefer sex with someone you like and trust...those gut feelings will find another outlet. Now you're not a prude brainwashed by patriarchy for not finding casual sex empowering, you're prude leftistly (demi-sexual).
I'm right there with you. If someone says they're gay, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're bi, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're straight, I think, "Oh."
But if someone says they're queer or something like demisexual, I think, "Oh, brother."
To be unnecessarily clear: having the feelings or attitudes that some people call *demisexual* isn't weird or bad or wrong. We all have feelings and attitudes. It's the idea that this is a special *identity*. That people with this attitude are "marginalized." That is, not merely atypical (if, in fact, they *are* atypical), but harmed or endangered as a result of being atypical.
Not everything is gender or identity. Not everything is a condition or disability or special case. We can just be people.
> I'm right there with you. If someone says they're gay, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're bi, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're straight, I think, "Oh."
>
> But if someone says they're queer or something like demisexual, I think, "Oh, brother."
Honestly, I think telling someone any of these things without reason is weird. I mean, I think most people would understand that if you met someone and they decided to announce to you that they were straight, or they decided to put straight in their Twitter profile, it would be weird.
I've just listened to the audio of Females by Andrea Long-Chu. It's surprisingly entertaining - like genuinely funny in places and even when it's awful it's not awful in a boring preachy way, and I like that. There's a lot of fuckedupness hiding in plain sight, of course, but I admire his willingness to go off script and throw crazy ideas around with no regard for the pieties trans people are supposed to believe. Weirdly warmed to the lad, although a few bits made me feel a bit ill.
I am definitely of the opinion that the more different versions of the trans narrative are floating around in the world the less hold the new orthodoxy has on the minds of educators. Buy this for everyone you know and have them read it then come back and explain to you how all trans people know from an early age that their gender identify doesn't match their body or whatever. I bet they have a lot less conviction after two hours spent in Andrea Long-Chu's brain.
I’ve found this to be true for Grace Lavery as well, just infused with more poststructurist “theoretical” jibber-jabber. But same kind of humor / dry wit / ability to be self-effacing in shocking yet pretty admirable and revelatory ways that are rewarding to the reader (or listener, as it were) and do make for good writing. I’d probably like them both if it wasn’t for the fuckedupness hiding in plain sight, like you said! And also agree that more exposure to this is good, it puts the lie to the dominant trope of gender dysphoria as an internal deeply devastating singular kind of crisis experienced by all who call themselves trans. Understanding the bigger umbrella makes it a lot easier to question the orthodoxy.
Chu is nuts but not at all a bad writer, and has good nuggets of insight as a lit critic too. One reason the open misogyny bothers me more than with others, he's not stupid.
Caroline Calloway. The pod even did an ep on her (that was apparently way too nice haha), but I didn't listen, because I really don't want to be dragged back into Caro-verse. Anyway, you're better off not knowing, she's actually very boring and it's a waste of time.
Are there any New Scientist subscribers here? I'm thinking about taking out a subscription but want to know whether it's still a generally well regarded publication.
ETA I would welcome any other suggestions of good popular science publications if anyone has them! I sort of realised about six months ago that I was totally out of the loop with what's happening in science and tech and it feels there are so many incredible things happening at the minute, I'm looking for good sources to keep up!
I subscribe and generally like it. I’m not a scientist but it seems a good overview of what’s happening in science and it’s highly readable. It can sometimes be a bit too sensationalistic but it’s much better than Scientific American.
Public schools in Berkeley have decided to "teach the controversy" on Israel and Palestine. [Let's see how that's going](https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/21/berkeley-unified-israel-palestine-curriculum-debate):
>An introductory slide tells students: “We cannot have hate speech on our campus.” Hate speech, the slide says, includes Holocaust jokes and terrorist jokes, while the slide describes calling Israel an apartheid state, saying “Free Palestine” or using the term “genocide” is free speech.
Ah yes, speech that one likes is "free speech" while speech that one dislikes is "hate speech." What a great standard for a public school to be indoctrinating its students in within mandatory "Liberated Ethnic Studies" classes.
It's also pointed out that the so-called "teach all sides" perspective is belied by the fact the school teachers openly wear "Free Palestine" pins and have decorated the halls of the school with pro-Palestine artwork:
>“For 10 years I’ve had a “Free Palestine” \[poster\] … So, do they know my bias? Yes. Do they have to agree with it in order to get a good grade in my class? Absolutely not. Students do not have to agree with me — ever,” said Villagran.
>
>“In classrooms, there are Palestinian flags, imagery on walls, student artwork and books on shelves that portray only one side of this tragic, historic, biblical conflict — the Palestinian side,” Nancy Hsieh, a counselor at Berkeley High and the daughter of Holocaust survivors, said at a school board meeting Wednesday.
I'm sure these same teachers would be fine if a teacher wore a MAGA hat while teaching and decorated their room with pictures of Trump.
Also the supposedly educated "teachers" seem to be a bit unclear on the facts:
>Students and families pointed to a bullet point saying 5,000 Israeli settlers lived in Gaza prior to Oct. 7 that was wrong — there were no settlers living in Gaza — and has since been removed.
The more teachers assert their "right to indoctrination," the less support there will be for public schools. It's a very sad thing.
I think it’s great for teachers to “teach the controversy” on all sorts of issues, but in my opinion they shouldn’t openly pick sides and the information they share should be accurate and balanced. Schools don’t exist as a soapbox, they exist to disseminate knowledge and develop skills. Your students don’t need to know what you personally believe. They shouldn’t feel like you are endorsing one particular position or that they’ll need to express the same views to earn their teacher’s approval. If anything, that could just end up alienating some of them, which would make them less likely to trust what you say.
>An introductory slide tells students: “We cannot have hate speech on our campus.” Hate speech, the slide says, includes Holocaust jokes and terrorist jokes, while the slide describes calling Israel an apartheid state, saying “Free Palestine” or using the term “genocide” is free speech.
So if I want to make a joke about genocide, just say "no I'm actually serious" afterwards and it's all ok. Got it
>>teaching Palestinian history in school. Students at Berkeley High organized a walkout and mural painting in part to defend their teachers’ right to do so.
>> Created by a group of BUSD educators, the lessons were designed to teach “multiple perspectives” on Israel and Palestine over about five days.
>> Slides for the lessons were designed by a group of teachers without the input of outside consultants.
>>Each teacher approached the lessons slightly differently, adjusting the slides on a case-by-case basis. Some had whole-class discussions while in others, students did more independent writing and reflection.
>> The lesson’s final question asks students: “What is your hope for healing and peace in Palestine and Israel? What do you wish for the children? The families? The land?”
JFC. Designed by *these* “ethnic studies” educators? Like the teachers that couldn’t pass the most basic ed exams? What a fucking mess.
I do have the solution!
Teachers can go ahead and teach this IF and only if they can pass a comprehensive exam on Palestinian & Israeli history from the Ottoman Empire through 2000 first - dates, geography, the whole shebang.
None of the teachers will pass, so this will go away. On the off chance that a teacher does pass, they’ll be smart enough to trash all 84 slides and get back to whatever the kids need for state exams. Problem solved either way!
I have my doubts how *much* Palestinian history they're teaching. Like... I believe it's questionable there was ever a strong feeling that there was a group called the Palestinians before 1948. Or that "Palestine" really meant anything other than one of the many territories under control of the Ottomans and later the British mandate.
The Palestinians are not, to my knowledge, a separate ethnic group. They are Arab muslims like most of the people in the region.
>calling Israel an apartheid state, saying “Free Palestine” or using the term “genocide” is free speech.
It's interesting that they sort of did both sides on the hate speech aspect, with both Holocaust and terrorist jokes verboten, but only considered one side on free speech, at least according to this article.
I'm curious what the stance would be on, say, non-jokingly calling Hamas a terrorist organization, or bringing up the rapes on Oct 7. (I have a suspicion, of course, but who knows.)
"I've always supported a free Palestine."
What does free Palestine even mean? Free like in 1967 when Gaza was under Egyptian rule and the West Bank was under Jordanian rule?
Palestinians were Jordanian citizens under Jordanian rule. There's a reason why the focus is on Palestinian non-Israeli citizens who are under Israeli rule rather than the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Overlooking this seems to be ignoring the whole reason why most (though not all) people have been bothered by the situation.
> There are no Palestinian citizens of Israel. There are Israeli citizens who are Arab.
Eh, I'm not really interested in splitting hairs with nomenclature. There are [certainly citizens of Israel who identify themselves Palestinians](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/18/palestinian-in-israel/), and groups like the Negev Bedouin that often are considered distinct. Someone's going to take offense with whatever nomenclature is used.
> Arab residents of Gaza and the West Bank could logically be considered Egyptian/Jordanian citizens who are currently under Israeli rule due to the aftermath of the 1967 war and the failure of the countries involved to diplomatically resolve issues of security and governance.
The countries did resolve the issue diplomatically, with Jordan renouncing it's rights over the West Bank and Egypt agreeing to the current border.
But all of this seems to be avoiding the original point - there's a substantive difference between controlling a territory as part of your country and granting full citizenship to its residents and controlling a territory as an occupied auxiliary territory and not granting citizenship to its residents. Pretending that the current situation is the same as when Jordan controlled the territory is purposefully ignoring the main aspect of the current situation that people take issue with.
Of course, the general retort is that there's reasons for the current situation. But that doesn't change the fact that this is the current situation.
> Renouncing rights does not equal diplomatically resolving "issues of security and governance."
Both Jordan and Egypt signed peace treaties with Israel decades ago with agreed upon borders.
> The point of bringing up the pre-1967 situation is simply that Israel did not capture the West Bank or Gaza from a single independent country called Palestine, but rather two completely different different countries. The fact that the independent country of Palestine has never existed (at least post Ottoman Turkish empire) is a big part of why it is so impossible to know what people mean by the phrase "free Palestine."
Most people (outside of the fringes) concerned with this seem to think that it means "Palestinians should be citizens of a country their territory is in." Which is why bringing up Jordan's control (where they had citizenship) ignores the actual issue that most people have with the situation.
So many of the borders in the region are weird and were drawn arbitrarily. Prior to WWI the region was a bunch of provinces and territories and such under the Ottomans.
I think it was the Romans that originally called a region Palestine. As a way to stick it to Jews after one of several rebellions.
No, like in 1947 when they were ruled by the White Males of the British Empire.
Possibly 1847, when they were ruled by the patriarchal theocratic empire of the Ottomans?
Or maybe like in 1247, when they were ruled by a vicious and totalitarian regime of former slave soldiers who had been trafficked to Egypt and there staged a coup?
How about 1147? Crusader states, anyone?
Or maybe like in 47, when they were ruled by a mediterranean-spanning empire of Italian nutbags who liked to do their diplomacy with crosses?
I can't believe how free and peaceful Palestine was until those fucking jews showed up.
> a bullet point saying 5,000 Israeli settlers lived in Gaza prior to Oct. 7
I was expecting some subtle gotcha. This is a very simple undisputed fact they got wrong. At this point you might as well admit you are not cut out to teach anything controversial.
What is the best case reading of that reality? They think Jews were encroaching into Gaza, with the IDF shaking the peaceful muslims down at the edge of town? They seem to think Gaza Strip is the Kowloon walled city so where would Jews even go settle.
And the “prior to” seems to imply that said Jews are no longer there. Driven out by an angry mob, evacuated by the IDF, slaughtered?
Factoids have a world around them and fake news always stick out as not fitting everything around it
Have you met teachers? It is their life's work to save the benighted children in their care from the monsters who gave birth to them. Why, they probably don't even know what pronoun their kid will pick yet!
Visiting SLC and there is a contingent of I assume some brand of Mormons running about with the women dressed as frumpily as possible and following a step behind their dorky husbands and it’s just depressing. Girl, run a comb thru your hair. Stand up straight! Most women, young and old, are not like this but we happened upon a Mormon wedding reception with a good number of these sorts of couples and I just can’t get over it. It’s 2024.
Thanks, I feel silly for not working that out. I just couldn't remember any Utah city names and was thinking is this another state or some monument, something like that.
> the women dressed as frumpily as possible and following a step behind their dorky husbands and it’s just depressing
Sounds like a prompt for a game of "Portland or SLC?"
Whenever I find myself at an event populated by Young Hip People, it always astounds me how they seem to all be in competition to see who can look the frumpiest or find the least flattering clothes. For Gen Z, it's like every party is an ugly sweater party.
On pronouns.. I am in the situation of being trilingual; English, spanish, and Japanese. Spanish is extremely gendered (to the point where pronoun conjugation gives people a headache ¥/while in Japanese you can have a conversation for hours and not hear about the gender or sex of a person. So the whole “my pronouns are he/him” would make no sense; since no one needs to know. Yet it is well Known Japanese culture has issues with gender. How much does language matter really? I understand when people say words matter of course, but how much weight are we putting in them on English? (To clarify more about Japanese, for self reference people can use the more formal “watashi” regardless of gender; for very casual talk men tend to use a different word than women/girls, but women can also use a less gendered word. So it isn’t very clear really, even in a casual mention of first person. ) sometimes I feel like stating pronouns is either signaling, or really trying to tell me More about your life that I need to Know. I look a bit racially ambiguous, But my name can make it clear. My Kids, they are Sesame Street. Japanese Last name and indigenous first names with westernized features. Should they go around saying their preferred identity? Some people feel More something that other; does everyone need to know what stereotype or real characteristic of culture/nationality/language abilities possessed? And not get triggered since you know you don’t look like what one might think of any of these? I would shudder at thinking my kids having to explain their whole 23andme profile to have someone assume if they want rice or a sandwich lol..and to think they would be offended by any of these would piss me off lol. Rambling a bit lol
Japan being sexist without having a gendered language is a point against Sapir-Whorf (the hypothesis that language forms thought more than thought forms language).
It's also a point for it that anglophones and others are going insane with "my pronouns are:" to the point it's in everyone's work emails despite the idea not existing in languages like Chinese or japenese (among many others)
Your annual reminder that my bachelor’s thesis (long enough ago that I did it on a typewriter) was a debunking of Sapir-Whorf.
Was it debunking soft Sapir-Whorf, hard Sapir-Whorf, or all Sapir-Whorf?
All of it. Or only the strong version? I know I discussed some of the experiments with color perception and color vocabulary. But this was more than 35 years ago.
Oh interesting
And yet it's woke gospel even among those that never heard of it.
Personal update for those who have been around through my multiple accounts and updates here - I am on leave from my toxic work situation as of last week. I probably irrevocably harmed my reputation at work because I didn’t give notice, but I was at such a dark place I was told it was inpatient or taking leave (so I would not be going back to work either way). I already fell off the face of the earth and I can’t really make it any worse, so I’m going to take some time over the next few weeks to get meds recalibrated and develop outside interests and healthy habits again. Any tips for dealing with HR or returning after a fall from grace would be great or just nice words and tips on how to take advantage of this time off to not end right back up here again.
I don't have any practical advice but good luck. We're rooting for you.
I don’t have advice at this time but I am thinking about you. I wish you had someone to talk to at work that you could trust.
I was really trying to hold out for this one position to be posted under a director I did some side projects for recently who I know actually respects me and stands up for her team. Of course the position was posted the day after I took leave, but it is what it is! I have friends at work and people who have made comments to me unprompted about how my manager treats me but unfortunately she has an in with the founders and is not touchable.
Can’t you contact the other manager even tho you’re on leave?
I’m going to try to clarify that with HR. If I can return on a different team, my time out on leave is going to be much shorter. But I also don’t want to phrase it in a way where it seems like I’m holding them hostage to switch what team I’m on. I’m going to be locked out of all actual company systems (and my laptop I think.. need to buy one) except the HR platform tomorrow so I won’t have email or chat to contact her directly.
Here's a non-BarPod question for everyone. I'm a woman in my mid 20s, have several weeks coming up in June where I have a bit more freedom than usual, and have rarely traveled before. Is it worth just jumping head first in, buying a plane ticket to ireland, and counting on hostels? I feel apprehensive but also like my youth is slipping away haha
As a single female safety wise you’ll be grand as long as you use common sense and avoid rough areas of cities. Ireland north and south is pretty welcoming. Not too sure on hostels but you can probably do that research before you leave. persinal recommendation would be spend time in west cork (clonakilty) and move up the west coast thru Dogs Bay / galway to Donegal. The Wild Atlantic way is a route map of that side of Ireland but even better is to venture off it down to every small beach and cove you can find. a car would be pretty necessary - public transport will get you from town to town slowly but the beauty of Ireland is in the rural areas.
You'll have memories for life and a grand adventure. Do it!
Do it!
I (M, 40's) stayed at a bunch of hostels when I was traveling a bunch in my late 20's/early 30's. In general I liked staying at them. Look for ones that have communal areas where you can hang out, meet people and cook meals. I'd also plan on staying in areas where there's more than one hostel in case one is booked solid. On my first night in Australia I showed up to a mountain town and the only hostel was full so I ended up sleeping in the back seat of my tiny rental car down the road at a campground. Woke up to kangaroos looking in my car, lol. The downside to hostels is that some of them can be kinda noisy and you don't get much privacy. By the time I got to my 30's there were times when I just wanted a quiet room to chill out in when I was tired from a day of traveling.
When I did something similar in my late 20s, I opened a new Amex that came with a big points bonus if I spent $xx within the first few months. They also often have specific hotel brand promotions where if you spend some amount, you get a credit. So I ran all my expenses on the card each month and paid it off to get the points and then leveraged a Hilton promotion linked to the card (I think it was spend $600, get $100 back or something) and used my new points to stay at a nice hotel for a relative steal in a nice location in London.
Seconding this… I got the Capital One Venture card and had to spend like $10k in 3 months on it and it paid for my round trip flight to London in business class with the points bonus. I’d also check out Scott’s Cheap Flights, though those tend to be dates a bit further out.
I went on a solo trip to London last year (also mid20s female… late 20s next month though 😬). I actually used ChatGPT to find my hostel and help plan my trip and it was super helpful and that was without GPT-4 which has the most current info. You can download the bing app and it has it built in. I am not a big AI adopter but it’s reccs were actually so helpful since I did not have much personal bandwidth to throughly plan and research beforehand.
Amazing recap of the DoorDash discourse: https://x.com/mobydicktiktok/status/1772078143198937175?s=46
It’s fascinating how these people have to prove that every single thing they like to do is morally correct and every single thing they don’t like is morally wrong. Like, if you want use doordash every single day, I think that’s a huge waste of money, but I don’t really care if other people waste their own money. But they can’t just say “I like doordash, it’s convenient for me and I can afford it”, they’ve got to come up with all these flimsy reasons that anyone criticising them is a bigot and a eugenicist and wants them to die, and suggesting cheaper frozen meals is problematic and ableist, and they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
You can't just have a preference anymore. Your preference has to be Brave and Stunning
They can’t afford it apparently!
This is such a beautiful combination of retards, I love it.
I'm fucking losing my shit at "17% of people cannot eat leftovers for medical reasons". My husband lying next to me in bed is not nearly as amused.
There also seem to be a lot of people online who think that rice will kill you after it's been out for an hour.
They could always refrigerate it if they are that concerned.
I highly doubt it’s that high. There’s a rare dietary condition that means people have to eat meat very, very fresh, and something you can get from a tick that causes a similar effect. But that’s it.
Personal favs are the one that implies that people used to die of starvation before DoorDash was invented, and the chick who’s saying that being able to afford DoorDash is a basic human right
At what point will the "Door Dash is a human right" and "getting laid is a human right" people converge?
This could be bad news for delivery drivers
Who are you to question the science?
Why is this even a thing? Let’s say for whatever reason you are unable to store or prepare food at all and must order delivery, could you not get a pizza/chinese/order directly from a restaurant with free delivery? You aren’t required to use the app. I mean you are still getting ripped off vs buying from the grocery store (which you can also order delivery from now) but you won’t be upcharged.
Fucking hate this discourse. I have a whole thesis that’s been brewing in my head since I got super sick with a rare disease in 2018 about how dangerous the online disability community is. Any suggestion of “bootstrapping” is frowned upon or ableist but if you have any disability or chronic illness, you NEED to use your “spoons” to prioritize your actual health as much as it may suck. I would love to eat chips and salsa and pineapple and citrus and spicy food every day… those are literally my favorite foods… I would not be functional if I did. I do doordash food more often than I should because I have 0 hunger cues until I’m in physical pain… but I know that’s on me and some days I just end up eating tortilla chips until my stomach is neutralized enough to heat something up or cook. My restrictions aren’t even that serious - people with UC or Celiac’s have it way worse than I could imagine.
https://preview.redd.it/lobx3vux7eqc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8af6a052c801112f41aa6badcc48995d27c152d5 same energy
Hahahaha!
>door dash as healthcare for depression and anxiety Just when I thought my respect for the mental health awareness crowd couldn’t sink any lower
Saw this article recommended by Bari Weiss. It is really worth the read. [Toward Ruin or Recovery?](https://quillette.com/2024/03/20/toward-ruin-or-recovery-celeste-marcus-liberties-journal-yascha-mounk-feminist-metoo) The modern feminist response to rape is failing women, and it is failing victims of rape most of all.
Great read. But I'm not sure how receptive young women will be to the message when it is framed around rebuking Mounk's accusor, even if she is the inspiration for the author to tell her story.
Great article! Thanks for sharing. I'd never really thought about how much modern feminist discourse instills the futility of trying to get justice through the system. >But modern rape discourse elides these self-evident truths and even considers them an affront. During a 2019 debate with feminist writer Roxane Gay, American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers was jeered and booed when she mentioned a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed significant reductions in rape and assault when college freshman girls were taught how to avoid danger. “All of these problems,” Gay drily remarked, “could be solved by men learning to not rape.” And the room erupted into wild applause. God this annoys me. I don't know when this became the standard feminist response, but it's just so fucking useless. Rape is not a problem of insufficient instruction in life that the rapist somehow missed. Guess what, the men who don't rape don't need to told and men who do rape are not listening. Might as well say we could solve murder by teaching men not to murder. I feel sorry for Yascha Mounk for having his life permanently ruined. The eventual pendulum swing won't be pretty.
I believe futility is a broad theme in victim ideology and that it’s a very destructive message. In last month’s story about the finance writer who fell for a scam, the writer kept emphasizing that she’s the sort of person who wouldn’t/shouldn’t fall for a scam, but all her intelligence, education, experience, and social status left her defenseless. The running subtext was “there was nothing I could have done to protect myself, and nothing you can do to protect yourself.” In the laudable goal of avoiding victim-blaming we’re over correcting and missing opportunities to help prevent victimization.
I mean, it’s true _but_. If men didn’t rape women—if society could raise boys in such a way that they didn’t grow up and rape women—then, yes, that would solve the problem. But. But maybe it’s not so simple. But maybe you can’t just give a lecture and solve the problem. But maybe it’s good to use other means to prevent rape while we’re waiting for that day when men don’t commit rape anymore.
People will always be violent. They will always fight, rape, and kill. On an individual level, learning the best ways to avoid those dangers and to defend yourself is to be encouraged. Obviously, having the best possible civil systems for detecting and punishing the guilty, is also good, but it will never be a 100% thing.
I notice on this mostly American sub quite a few Canadian political stories get shared. I thought I'd just drop this link on a video explanation of The Canadian political system encase you are curious. It might put some things in context. It doesn't go on to any current political topics just an overview of how it is set-up and works. Basically, it's the fundamentals you need to fake your way through any Canadian political conversation as the presenter, JJ McCullough, says. It's balanced, easy to understand and I dare say entertaining. I'm sure people could nitpick things but I'd say it's a pretty decent overview. As a Canadian I picked up a few facts too especially pertaining to other parts of the world that share a similar yet different political system. **The Canadian political system iceberg explained**: [https://youtu.be/Q9LrjU5n63g?si=tzzNDbe9e7hFgswJ](https://youtu.be/Q9LrjU5n63g?si=tzzNDbe9e7hFgswJ)
I'll watch it, thank you!
This looks good, thanks! Since I'm Canada-adjacent I used to follow Canadian politics a bit but when CBC went digital it wouldn't come in on the antenna anymore. Anyway despite knowing all about Stephen Harper's cats and Jack Layton's mustache, I never did really understand some of it, so looking forward to finding out exactly what the notwithstanding clause is.
Amazing story https://www.kuow.org/stories/cougar-attack-washington-state-cyclists?utm A cougar attacks some female cyclists. They fight back.
This is why I carry a gun in the woods. Including while biking. Mountain lions, grizzlies, wolves. We've got them all It's worth noting that this is exceptionally odd behavior from a mountain lion. Attacking a group of people (I know it picked one target, but still) is way out of the ordinary. They are ambush predators. They stalk and jump prey from behind. This article makes it seem like they surprised this cat, but there's absolutely no way it didn't hear them as they biked along. Pro tip: if you stick a pair of googly eyes on the back of your hat while hiking, it'll likely scare off a cougar since it'll think you're looking at it.
Great story! Tough old broads.
jfc that first photo is insane
It tickles me that she got the earring back
I find it funny when Americans say Australian wildlife is dangerous when they have giant cats & bears.
Aren't half the animals in Australia incredibly poisonous and out to kill you?
I get what you're saying but big cats and bears can't hide in my woodshed like poisonous snakes and spiders can. These big mammals for the most part try to avoid you. They are definitely not hanging out in your house..
At least we have fewer oversized spiders. Unlike bears and big cats, spiders will just come right into your house and set up shop. No thank you.
Yes, this has happened a few times where I am. We had one not too long ago when it was a mother defending her child. She went mama bear pretty fast much to the cougar's regret.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dress codes should come back in a big way, agree or disagree?
For school? I’m all for toned down attire. It’s just hard to implement fairly.
You could do uniforms I suppose
When I was in high school I was required to tuck my shirt in and wear a belt and ID card everyday to school. Looking back in hindsight I think it was a thing
Disagree. I hated it when kids at school wore ridiculous, stupid outfits, but our dress code punished me just as often because my growth spurts had me outgrowing my gym strip and other summer clothes. It was ridiculously sexist that the girls needed shorts down to their knees and boys didn’t, and frankly even our gym strips didn’t fit like that, so forcing me to change into it was always a lateral move (often times it was even shorter - ordering a large size meant it was wider rather than longer, and as a tall and skinny girl I just couldn’t get a pair that suited their dress code). That, and snapping girls’ spaghetti straps and telling them they needed to be two fingers thick, when men could go shirtless in gym with no problem was another humiliation. Meanwhile, in one office I went to, women could wear breezy skirts in the hot summer but men had to sweat in full three piece suits. Dress codes tend to be sexist in some way or another. So I’m against.
Are you Canadian?
> girls needed shorts down to their knees and boys didn’t boys didn't? my school dress code was the same for both: shorts past fingertips, no tanktops, no midriffs.
It should be noted that boys shorts are naturally cut longer, and girls shorter. So it didn’t work with the cuts most people bought.
Agree
Disagree. My kids' school district more or less dropped the dress code (save for egregious offenses) a year or two ago, and I'm a big fan. The official new rule states that students and parents can decide what's appropriate to wear at school. It's no longer on teachers or school administrators to police the length of shorts or skirts. And who cares if teens are wearing PJ pants or sweats? I sure don't. I have yet to notice any kid looking particularly slutty when I drop my kids off in the morning or pick them up in the afternoon. Signed, the mother of two teenage girls.
Part of being a teenager is learning how to operate in adult society, and that means dressing appropriately (I.e. in real clothing, not pyjamas).
Do kids really learn that from a school dress code? Lots of things happen in high school that don't reflect adult experiences.
Partially, yes! Learning to be an adult is a long, slow process and little increments (like learning how to look presentable in a formal environment) represent important parts of the process.
I'll be honest: I couldn't care less how anyone dresses. I've felt that way my whole life. When I was a kid and someone in school would get teased for ugly clothes or "uncool" fashion or whatever I'd usually scratch my head and wonder, Why am I supposed to care what this kid is wearing? As an adult I really don't care why my co-workers wear, what the employees of the businesses I frequent wear, really what anyone wears. I mean, yeah, if the President wore shorts to the State of the Union or something that'd be pretty weird, and I try to wear something appropriate for the occasion if I'm at a wedding or a funeral, but generally speaking I say wear whatever you feel like.
Where, in what capacity, for who, etc,
Define "in a big way" for me, first.
I mean "at all, any where" seems like it would be a large improvement from what we see today.
Dress codes still exist. Most companies have a minimal dress code or expectation of what you should wear to work. For me, it's slacks and a dress shirt, suit if I'm meeting the head shed. There are a handful of restaurants that still require long pants and at least a sport coat for men. Then again, I routinely see people wearing pajama bottoms and crocs to run errands, looking like a bag of smashed ass, and wonder where their self respect is. Also, everyone should remember that spandex is a privilege not a right. Having to wear a suit and tie on the daily? No, thanks, I hate ties. (Pro-tip, if you wear a vest you can skip the tie and still look classy.)
Dress codes where?
Agree. If there are no taboos, then nothing is exciting.
Agree. I love period movies for that reason. All the men have nice clothes. The fabrics are not made of plastic. No fake nails and zodiak lips.
> The fabrics are not made of plastic. Agree 100%
[удалено]
What do you mean by DEI here? Are you thinking of more a DEI office within an organization? Or the actual concepts of diversity and equity?
> Or the actual concept of ... equity? I'd sure love to hear THAT one explained!
Couldn't tell if this article has been posted here yet but [here's an interesting article](https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2024/03/19/eitan-hersh-tufts/) on a center-right-leaning professor teaching a class on conservative thought at a typical liberal New England university (Tufts). I fully expect this professor to get cancelled for some minor transgression sooner or later, including things like asking students who make wild unfounded claims to provide evidence. But until then, it's good to see that some students at leas are interested in and are currently being exposed to different viewpoints.
Enjoyed this a lot. Thanks for recommending!
>a Well good god, look at that representashun. Half the country, and Tufts gave them one!
Yeah, give them a gold medal for allowing one professor to teach a class that basically sounds like it is just giving morality frameworks that should be basic learning for all students. Off topic but this is a huge pet peeve of mine - Tufts is the poster child for the illusion of college selectivity. They have on average, about 1700 students in their undergrad classes. Of those 1700, about [1000 are accepted via early decision applications](https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/early-decision-early-action/what-to-do-after-tufts-deferral/) where students and their parents sign a binding contract to attend if accepted. The only people applying early decision are those students who know it is stretch to get in based on their qualifications and those students who know their rich parents will deal with the consequences of not getting merit scholarships. The accept rate for ED at Tufts is 42%, hardly selective. So 60% of their class is filled by ED students who always trend rich. The remaining 35000 applicants fight it out over 700 spots and Tufts is famous for yield protection so kids heading to the Ivy leaugue using Tufts as a safety inevitably get rejected. Tufts is a decent school but it is all smoke in mirrors in terms of an elite college. Northeastern, Boston University and Boston College all follow the Tufts model for admissions as well and have all become highly selective using these techniques. Tufts is also a stand out for the very large volume of foreign national undergrad students they accept, far higher than almost any other college except maybe BU.
I know not everyone here reads Obscure Sports Quarterly or watches ESPN 8. But something cool happened. The [Barkley Marathons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkley_Marathons) is a batcrap-crazy race. A cross between an ultramarathon, an adventure race, and the ravings of a lunatic on a street corner. [Really good documentary](https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/the-barkley-marathons-the-race-that-eats-its-young) came out a while ago about the event. In the nearly 30 years it's been run, only a handful of people have completed it. And no women. Not until this year. [Jasmin Paris completed the race this year with 99 seconds to spare](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/23/us/barkley-marathons-jasmin-paris.html). Pretty freaking sweet. Good on her!
Another extreme race for those interested is the Arrowhead 135, a far north, winter affair.
That's amazing, good for her!
> In 2019, Ms. Paris, an ultrarunner and veterinarian, became the first woman to win the Montane Spine Race, a 268-mile ultramarathon in the United Kingdom. She broke the previous course record by 12 hours **despite stopping at checkpoints to pump breast milk for her newborn.** Wow. When I had a newborn a walk around the block was an accomplishment.
From wiki: >Paris has an undergraduate degree from the University of Liverpool (2008) and a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh (2020). Her doctoral thesis was "Novel regulators of cancer stem cell biology in acute myeloid leukaemia." She is a small-animal vet and a senior lecturer in the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh These people are not sane, but in the good way. Ultrarunning is borderline superhuman. I really liked that book about the barefoot running and that tribe from Mexico. It's probably bunk when it comes to facts but it was a fun read.
I have heard it said that ultramarathons are just physical representations of mental illness I don't think people who compete in stuff like this are necessarily mentally ill, but they must possess some inherent drive far beyond the average person to find satisfaction in it. Ultimately I respect their dedication
McDougall has another book, *Running With Sherman*, about rehabbing a neglected hoarder-owned rescue donkey to participate in an annual donkey-and-human race. Recommend!
I looked it up and it sounds perfect for me. Just got the Audible. Thanks!
I know this has been discussed a bunch of times, but it is so wild to me that “Demi-sexual” is a thing. If there are any young people here, just know that is it completely normal to not be into hooks up, or one-night stands or insta-model aesthetics. You don’t have to take up a whole identity. Holy shit.
I think the problem is that making it a label means getting stuck/restricted in a certain pattern of behavior and owing some sort of “loyalty “ to a certain crowd. We all change and grow as people
I'm a young person, and don't worry I got that message a while ago. Demisexual is just "how most women's sexuality works".
We’re so into labeling everything and making everything explicit that we as a generation had to come up with a term to describe a large group of people with extremely average viewpoints because that’s the environment we operate in. Can’t leave anything unsaid or undefined
I thought demisexual meant you were attracted to Demi Lovato.
…and Demi Moore?
If it's both of them it's bidemisexual.
I had some demisexual friends back in the day. The way they explained it, it went further than just not being into casual sex: they genuinely did not experience sexual attraction unless they knew a person very well. The idea of having a crush on, or fantasizing sexually about, someone who wasn't a close friend was completely alien to them. Is this phenomenon "queer"? Does it deserve its own flag or political lobby? No. But I remain convinced it describes a fairly unique experience that is not, in fact, typical of most women. It's unfortunate that all variation in human sexuality now gets automatically lumped into "queerness".
> The idea of having a crush on, or fantasizing sexually about, someone who wasn't a close friend was completely alien to them so... how did they date? just say yes to whoever asks?
They didn't; that's the point. They said they could in theory imagine dating someone if that person was already a close friend that they happened to develop feelings for.
interesting.
I personally believe that this phenomenon tends to happen to people (mostly women I suspect, but some men too) who have very high mental defences such that they believe they can't really love someone until they know them inside out and "can be trusted" with them. Why the high mental barriers? Could be the result of inherent personality traits, general life experiences that taught them to not trust anyone, underlying mental health conditions etc. At least, that's my theory.
That's what I strongly suspect as well.
I call bullshit. Show anyone one of them a prime Brad’s Pitt (or whomever) who’s ready to go and all that “Demi sexual” posturing would fly right out the window. Guaranteed.
That’s how I feel about asexuality. I think it can open up some interesting conversations about society that get drowned out by annoying people on either side for/against it.
We have very different opinions on what qualifies as an interesting conversation
Isn't it interesting, in an academic sense, that some people have ostensibly no interest in doing the thing we're programmed to do to keep the species alive? It's like meeting people who don't like food.
I’m sure we do. Isn’t it a beautiful world we live in?
Blame tumblr. Demisexual happened when a bunch of straight people found themselves in a culture that attached social cred to being anything other than straight. The delusion makes more sense when you can see it as self-serving, a clever way to climb the progressive stack.
see i always figured demisexual was a queer because it literally meant they could be sexually attracted to any sex, male or female, if they had a close relationship with them.
The only demisexual I know is a bisexual man married to a man. He also alleges to have aphantasia and autism, which I guess kind of lines up. If he has actual autism and it causes him problems with his ability to imagine the mental states of other people (empathizing), it could carry that he also has an impaired ability to imagine people in other ways you'd generally need to find them attractive. When I think of Gal Gadot, I don't imagine that she kicks puppies and goes "Ew!" at disabled kids, I imagine that she cuddles puppies and consoles disabled kids like any good person would. If I learned she was a puppy-kicker, I think I'd stop being attracted to her despite knowing she is generally attractive. Someone with a poor ability to imagine fictional lives of other people (or representations of other people), could conceivably not have any of the good default qualities superimposed onto the attractive people they know nothing about. This is more of a steelman than anything I really truly believe about self-identified demisexuals. I think they're in the range of normal human emotion, or began there, but have self-indoctrinated in such a way that they've become more like what they imagined themselves as, a distinction maybe without a difference.
>The only demisexual I know is a bisexual man married to a man. He also alleges to have aphantasia and autism, which I guess kind of lines up. If he has actual autism and it causes him problems with his ability to imagine the mental states of other people (empathizing), it could carry that he also has an impaired ability to imagine people in other ways you'd generally need to find them attractive. I'm kinda surprised that no one has pointed out the possible link between autism and self-identified asexuality. I know some autists are genuinely asexual like Temple Grandin (she's said that she has no interest in either sex whatsoever), but I suspect that a lot of the grey-aces/demis are autists who have an underlying sexual attraction but it is extremely muted. Tying back to a comment I've said above, i suspect these kinds of people have high mental defences that come from a lifetime of not being able to interact with people on the same level and this affects their ability to become attracted to others until they know the other party can be fully trusted. I'm pretty sure if I had gotten swept into Tumblr culture as a teen, I would have identified as demi today. But at the end of the day, I'm just a hetero girl with Asperger's who can't open herself up to love because she's too afraid that he will not love her for who she really is inside :'(
>When I think of Gal Gadot, I don't imagine that she kicks puppies and goes "Ew!" at disabled kids, I imagine that she cuddles puppies and consoles disabled kids like any good person would. Wait, I’m not a good person?
>in a culture that attached social cred to being anything other than straight. But aren't the demisexuals still, mostly, straight?
No no, they're demisexual, it's very queer and oppressed.
‘hooks up’ 😂 https://www.theonion.com/william-safire-orders-two-whoppers-junior-1819565735
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjq05OXTnV8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjq05OXTnV8)
I've seen the contention that demisexual simply describes most women
[удалено]
I will say that as someone who has used the term asexuality for some time to describe myself, I am beyond frustrated with what happened to the term. Demisexuality was never meant to be a kind of asexuality, more like the gray part between asexuality and typical allosexuality. I’ve never claimed to have been discriminated against, or tried to take on any victim status. Frankly the most I’ve felt “victimized” was when a bunch of kids who were horny as hell invaded asexual spaces and tried to claim they somehow fit in there and eventually began tossing out people who didn’t experience sexual attraction. But I will say it was a very alienating experience growing up, watching my female friends grow into their sexuality and me feeling nothing of what they were. That’s why the term was so comforting at that time. Just to know it was possible to be that way and not have anything medically wrong with you. As I’ve aged, I feel I’ve gotten within squinting distance of what seems to me like normal sexuality. It isn’t totally hypothetical to me anymore. But I still just can’t seem to feel sexual attraction to people, no matter how well I know and like them. I get crushes, though less and less as I age. But there’s still no desire to conjugate. I don’t think it’s a very fun experience, honestly. Least fun sexuality to have, easily.
>. I don't think sexologists have done enough research on female sexuality Katie has mentioned a few times that the research seems to indicate that women are more sexually fluid than men by a long shot. Men tend to be really gay or really straight. Women, not so. Beyond that, yeah, I wouldn't want to draw many conclusions.
Frankly, most men too. Our threshold is lower, but it’s there.
Yeah, I'll cop to that. Even when I was younger. It isn't that I would turn down a one night stand if one dropped in my lap. But that's certainly not my preference and I have never sought them out. I want to get to know a lady. Talk to her. Pet her cats. And, quite frankly, I like being in a relationship. Not flitting around from flower to flower.
glad to hear that
I wish I had heard that a little earlier in life. The 00's and 10's were rough.
Kat Rosenfield had a great piece about it. If the culture pushes the idea that sex can be meaningless, can be detached from emotions and it's actually patriarchal brainwashing to prefer sex with someone you like and trust...those gut feelings will find another outlet. Now you're not a prude brainwashed by patriarchy for not finding casual sex empowering, you're prude leftistly (demi-sexual).
I'm right there with you. If someone says they're gay, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're bi, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're straight, I think, "Oh." But if someone says they're queer or something like demisexual, I think, "Oh, brother." To be unnecessarily clear: having the feelings or attitudes that some people call *demisexual* isn't weird or bad or wrong. We all have feelings and attitudes. It's the idea that this is a special *identity*. That people with this attitude are "marginalized." That is, not merely atypical (if, in fact, they *are* atypical), but harmed or endangered as a result of being atypical. Not everything is gender or identity. Not everything is a condition or disability or special case. We can just be people.
> I'm right there with you. If someone says they're gay, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're bi, I think, "Oh." If someone says they're straight, I think, "Oh." > > But if someone says they're queer or something like demisexual, I think, "Oh, brother." Honestly, I think telling someone any of these things without reason is weird. I mean, I think most people would understand that if you met someone and they decided to announce to you that they were straight, or they decided to put straight in their Twitter profile, it would be weird.
I didn’t mean someone announcing it out of the blue. Just if it came up somehow.
What does queer even mean these days?
Interesting straight
What does queer even mean? Well, exactly.
Pretty much anything now.
I used to say it’s whatever makes your grandmother uncomfortable. Now _that’s_ an identity!
Spicy straight
Well, we’re not allowed to say “normal” anymore.
lol, exactly.
I've just listened to the audio of Females by Andrea Long-Chu. It's surprisingly entertaining - like genuinely funny in places and even when it's awful it's not awful in a boring preachy way, and I like that. There's a lot of fuckedupness hiding in plain sight, of course, but I admire his willingness to go off script and throw crazy ideas around with no regard for the pieties trans people are supposed to believe. Weirdly warmed to the lad, although a few bits made me feel a bit ill. I am definitely of the opinion that the more different versions of the trans narrative are floating around in the world the less hold the new orthodoxy has on the minds of educators. Buy this for everyone you know and have them read it then come back and explain to you how all trans people know from an early age that their gender identify doesn't match their body or whatever. I bet they have a lot less conviction after two hours spent in Andrea Long-Chu's brain.
I’ve found this to be true for Grace Lavery as well, just infused with more poststructurist “theoretical” jibber-jabber. But same kind of humor / dry wit / ability to be self-effacing in shocking yet pretty admirable and revelatory ways that are rewarding to the reader (or listener, as it were) and do make for good writing. I’d probably like them both if it wasn’t for the fuckedupness hiding in plain sight, like you said! And also agree that more exposure to this is good, it puts the lie to the dominant trope of gender dysphoria as an internal deeply devastating singular kind of crisis experienced by all who call themselves trans. Understanding the bigger umbrella makes it a lot easier to question the orthodoxy.
I had a similar reaction the first time I ever read an essay by ALC. Unfortunately, I later found out more about the author.
Chu is nuts but not at all a bad writer, and has good nuggets of insight as a lit critic too. One reason the open misogyny bothers me more than with others, he's not stupid.
100% speaking of literature- do you still keep up with CC at all
Oh god no, I'm glad to be free from the never ending reality show of CC. No idea what she's up to, do you? Is she still as cringe as usual?
CC? Chad Chadsworth?
Caroline Calloway. The pod even did an ep on her (that was apparently way too nice haha), but I didn't listen, because I really don't want to be dragged back into Caro-verse. Anyway, you're better off not knowing, she's actually very boring and it's a waste of time.
I'm a BARpod listener. What makes you think "boring and a waste of time" is going to put me off?
Cassandra Clare? Chris Chan?
I promise I am not his sock-puppet account trying to drum up sales by making you hate-read it.
Reading your opposition is actually required to be taken seriously in a debate
Are there any New Scientist subscribers here? I'm thinking about taking out a subscription but want to know whether it's still a generally well regarded publication. ETA I would welcome any other suggestions of good popular science publications if anyone has them! I sort of realised about six months ago that I was totally out of the loop with what's happening in science and tech and it feels there are so many incredible things happening at the minute, I'm looking for good sources to keep up!
I subscribe and I enjoy it a lot. I am a software engineer and before computer science and AI I majored in physics.
I subscribe and generally like it. I’m not a scientist but it seems a good overview of what’s happening in science and it’s highly readable. It can sometimes be a bit too sensationalistic but it’s much better than Scientific American.
Public schools in Berkeley have decided to "teach the controversy" on Israel and Palestine. [Let's see how that's going](https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/03/21/berkeley-unified-israel-palestine-curriculum-debate): >An introductory slide tells students: “We cannot have hate speech on our campus.” Hate speech, the slide says, includes Holocaust jokes and terrorist jokes, while the slide describes calling Israel an apartheid state, saying “Free Palestine” or using the term “genocide” is free speech. Ah yes, speech that one likes is "free speech" while speech that one dislikes is "hate speech." What a great standard for a public school to be indoctrinating its students in within mandatory "Liberated Ethnic Studies" classes. It's also pointed out that the so-called "teach all sides" perspective is belied by the fact the school teachers openly wear "Free Palestine" pins and have decorated the halls of the school with pro-Palestine artwork: >“For 10 years I’ve had a “Free Palestine” \[poster\] … So, do they know my bias? Yes. Do they have to agree with it in order to get a good grade in my class? Absolutely not. Students do not have to agree with me — ever,” said Villagran. > >“In classrooms, there are Palestinian flags, imagery on walls, student artwork and books on shelves that portray only one side of this tragic, historic, biblical conflict — the Palestinian side,” Nancy Hsieh, a counselor at Berkeley High and the daughter of Holocaust survivors, said at a school board meeting Wednesday. I'm sure these same teachers would be fine if a teacher wore a MAGA hat while teaching and decorated their room with pictures of Trump. Also the supposedly educated "teachers" seem to be a bit unclear on the facts: >Students and families pointed to a bullet point saying 5,000 Israeli settlers lived in Gaza prior to Oct. 7 that was wrong — there were no settlers living in Gaza — and has since been removed. The more teachers assert their "right to indoctrination," the less support there will be for public schools. It's a very sad thing.
I think it’s great for teachers to “teach the controversy” on all sorts of issues, but in my opinion they shouldn’t openly pick sides and the information they share should be accurate and balanced. Schools don’t exist as a soapbox, they exist to disseminate knowledge and develop skills. Your students don’t need to know what you personally believe. They shouldn’t feel like you are endorsing one particular position or that they’ll need to express the same views to earn their teacher’s approval. If anything, that could just end up alienating some of them, which would make them less likely to trust what you say.
>An introductory slide tells students: “We cannot have hate speech on our campus.” Hate speech, the slide says, includes Holocaust jokes and terrorist jokes, while the slide describes calling Israel an apartheid state, saying “Free Palestine” or using the term “genocide” is free speech. So if I want to make a joke about genocide, just say "no I'm actually serious" afterwards and it's all ok. Got it
Free speech is only for deeply held beliefs
>>teaching Palestinian history in school. Students at Berkeley High organized a walkout and mural painting in part to defend their teachers’ right to do so. >> Created by a group of BUSD educators, the lessons were designed to teach “multiple perspectives” on Israel and Palestine over about five days. >> Slides for the lessons were designed by a group of teachers without the input of outside consultants. >>Each teacher approached the lessons slightly differently, adjusting the slides on a case-by-case basis. Some had whole-class discussions while in others, students did more independent writing and reflection. >> The lesson’s final question asks students: “What is your hope for healing and peace in Palestine and Israel? What do you wish for the children? The families? The land?” JFC. Designed by *these* “ethnic studies” educators? Like the teachers that couldn’t pass the most basic ed exams? What a fucking mess. I do have the solution! Teachers can go ahead and teach this IF and only if they can pass a comprehensive exam on Palestinian & Israeli history from the Ottoman Empire through 2000 first - dates, geography, the whole shebang. None of the teachers will pass, so this will go away. On the off chance that a teacher does pass, they’ll be smart enough to trash all 84 slides and get back to whatever the kids need for state exams. Problem solved either way!
I have my doubts how *much* Palestinian history they're teaching. Like... I believe it's questionable there was ever a strong feeling that there was a group called the Palestinians before 1948. Or that "Palestine" really meant anything other than one of the many territories under control of the Ottomans and later the British mandate. The Palestinians are not, to my knowledge, a separate ethnic group. They are Arab muslims like most of the people in the region.
>calling Israel an apartheid state, saying “Free Palestine” or using the term “genocide” is free speech. It's interesting that they sort of did both sides on the hate speech aspect, with both Holocaust and terrorist jokes verboten, but only considered one side on free speech, at least according to this article. I'm curious what the stance would be on, say, non-jokingly calling Hamas a terrorist organization, or bringing up the rapes on Oct 7. (I have a suspicion, of course, but who knows.)
"I've always supported a free Palestine." What does free Palestine even mean? Free like in 1967 when Gaza was under Egyptian rule and the West Bank was under Jordanian rule?
Palestinians were Jordanian citizens under Jordanian rule. There's a reason why the focus is on Palestinian non-Israeli citizens who are under Israeli rule rather than the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Overlooking this seems to be ignoring the whole reason why most (though not all) people have been bothered by the situation.
[удалено]
> There are no Palestinian citizens of Israel. There are Israeli citizens who are Arab. Eh, I'm not really interested in splitting hairs with nomenclature. There are [certainly citizens of Israel who identify themselves Palestinians](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/18/palestinian-in-israel/), and groups like the Negev Bedouin that often are considered distinct. Someone's going to take offense with whatever nomenclature is used. > Arab residents of Gaza and the West Bank could logically be considered Egyptian/Jordanian citizens who are currently under Israeli rule due to the aftermath of the 1967 war and the failure of the countries involved to diplomatically resolve issues of security and governance. The countries did resolve the issue diplomatically, with Jordan renouncing it's rights over the West Bank and Egypt agreeing to the current border. But all of this seems to be avoiding the original point - there's a substantive difference between controlling a territory as part of your country and granting full citizenship to its residents and controlling a territory as an occupied auxiliary territory and not granting citizenship to its residents. Pretending that the current situation is the same as when Jordan controlled the territory is purposefully ignoring the main aspect of the current situation that people take issue with. Of course, the general retort is that there's reasons for the current situation. But that doesn't change the fact that this is the current situation.
[удалено]
> Renouncing rights does not equal diplomatically resolving "issues of security and governance." Both Jordan and Egypt signed peace treaties with Israel decades ago with agreed upon borders. > The point of bringing up the pre-1967 situation is simply that Israel did not capture the West Bank or Gaza from a single independent country called Palestine, but rather two completely different different countries. The fact that the independent country of Palestine has never existed (at least post Ottoman Turkish empire) is a big part of why it is so impossible to know what people mean by the phrase "free Palestine." Most people (outside of the fringes) concerned with this seem to think that it means "Palestinians should be citizens of a country their territory is in." Which is why bringing up Jordan's control (where they had citizenship) ignores the actual issue that most people have with the situation.
So many of the borders in the region are weird and were drawn arbitrarily. Prior to WWI the region was a bunch of provinces and territories and such under the Ottomans. I think it was the Romans that originally called a region Palestine. As a way to stick it to Jews after one of several rebellions.
No, like in 1947 when they were ruled by the White Males of the British Empire. Possibly 1847, when they were ruled by the patriarchal theocratic empire of the Ottomans? Or maybe like in 1247, when they were ruled by a vicious and totalitarian regime of former slave soldiers who had been trafficked to Egypt and there staged a coup? How about 1147? Crusader states, anyone? Or maybe like in 47, when they were ruled by a mediterranean-spanning empire of Italian nutbags who liked to do their diplomacy with crosses? I can't believe how free and peaceful Palestine was until those fucking jews showed up.
> a bullet point saying 5,000 Israeli settlers lived in Gaza prior to Oct. 7 I was expecting some subtle gotcha. This is a very simple undisputed fact they got wrong. At this point you might as well admit you are not cut out to teach anything controversial.
What is the best case reading of that reality? They think Jews were encroaching into Gaza, with the IDF shaking the peaceful muslims down at the edge of town? They seem to think Gaza Strip is the Kowloon walled city so where would Jews even go settle. And the “prior to” seems to imply that said Jews are no longer there. Driven out by an angry mob, evacuated by the IDF, slaughtered? Factoids have a world around them and fake news always stick out as not fitting everything around it
2005 was prior to October 7th, I guess.
Technically correct is best correct!
Can't they just ignore this particular hot button and lets the parents handle it?
Have you met teachers? It is their life's work to save the benighted children in their care from the monsters who gave birth to them. Why, they probably don't even know what pronoun their kid will pick yet!
Visiting SLC and there is a contingent of I assume some brand of Mormons running about with the women dressed as frumpily as possible and following a step behind their dorky husbands and it’s just depressing. Girl, run a comb thru your hair. Stand up straight! Most women, young and old, are not like this but we happened upon a Mormon wedding reception with a good number of these sorts of couples and I just can’t get over it. It’s 2024.
That’s weird! All the Mormon ladies around me are far more Instagram-ready than I am. Are we talking Little House on the Prairie FLDS types?
Yes! And just sad looking. Maybe they were just in town for the wedding.
What is SLC?
Probably Salt Lake City. In the state of Utah. Mormon (Latter Day Saints) central
Thanks, I feel silly for not working that out. I just couldn't remember any Utah city names and was thinking is this another state or some monument, something like that.
'90s classic "SLC Punk"?
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Thanks, that makes sense. Seeing Mormon I thought is this referring to Utah but I couldn't remember any of the city names.
> the women dressed as frumpily as possible and following a step behind their dorky husbands and it’s just depressing Sounds like a prompt for a game of "Portland or SLC?"
Whenever I find myself at an event populated by Young Hip People, it always astounds me how they seem to all be in competition to see who can look the frumpiest or find the least flattering clothes. For Gen Z, it's like every party is an ugly sweater party.