Lots of fabrication in this story

I mean, that was the point. Previous poster imagined a world. I imagined another one.

As for the Asian kid - one grain of rice at a time. Boiling water in a lot of tiny containers. It ended up being surprisingly efficient, save for a mild case of carpal tunnel syndrome.

I was hoping to see this higher up. It’s not everyday that truth hits you like a ton of bricks, and this needed to be said.

When I was 16 I lived in a small village. It had the charm of country life, but it also had some off-putting characters. Harry, the town butcher, was an extremely right-wind, religious conservative, and a racist. Sarah, the priest’s mistress, never had kids and couldn’t stand them. And then there was Leah. She was Sarah’s sister’s daughter and I had a huge crush on her, except I didn’t even know it at the time because I wasn’t aware a girl could feel that way about another girl.

Anyway, I could write for hours about small town life, about how my friends were the only thing that got me through the day, about how I fell in love and out of love within the same date because the other person was telling me how they rescued a cat just to drop the other shoe - they rescued it from a black couple. I could tell you about racism and classism, about religion and how it turned the entire village against my parents, I could tell you about the time a young Asian child was forced to boil rice for the whole village because “it’s in his blood”, how his mother wanted to fight it but ended up cheering for the crowd that locked him in old mister Miller’s house for the night with just 20 bags of rice and a pair of drum sticks to serve as chopsticks. I could tell you about the Mexican family who once removed all their clothes and set them on a rope to dry in the town square and proceeded to sunbathe because they didn’t understand why people were saying their backs were wet. I could tell you about the Eastern European mobster who cut off two of my grandma’s fingers when she couldn’t pay for some cocaine, or the British “explorer” who came in and wanted to buy the town and put his name everywhere but he could only pay with some pictures of an old lady. Or I could tell you about when the Arab family moved next door so we all slept in shifts in my house because my parents were afraid of terrorists, until Harry the butcher carved “Mohammed” into a pig and left it on their lawn.

I know racism, I lived it all my life. So I could sit here and say a lot of things, but I think the previous poster has demonstrated well enough how you can just sit there and imagine shit and post it on the internet and all of a sudden it becomes true.

Is it that they’re less left leaning? Cause when you put the names of the candidates there (Obama vs Harris), it just sounds like a weaker candidate that didn’t move their base as much.

Every week you gotta:

• dust all rooms
• vacuum all rooms
• mop rooms without carpet
• cook multiple times depending on how you get organized
• clean kitchen after each cooking session
• do the dishes
• laundry multiple times
• grocery shop
• iron clothes
• clean the bathroom
• take out the trash multiple times

Every few weeks you gotta:

• wash curtains
• clean the stove
• clean up that closet or drawer that’s full of stuff you don’t know where to put
• whatever else I can’t think of right now

Every few months you gotta:

• defrost the freezer & clean the fridge
• deep clean some areas
• some other things probably

Add a regular 8h job on top, add commitments (visit for someone’s birthday, go out with friends etc), add some hobbies (gaming? Rock climbing? Whatever floats your boat, it still takes time)…

I would burn out faster doing all this shit than postponing my cleaning until someone visits. I try to weave in some chores between the essential stuff, but it always adds up and I need to spend a weekend catching up.

Holy shit, if that’s how they wanna play this, God’s telling me to shoot some insurance fucks.

I just don’t go places

Shit inside his mouth, let’s see him say stuff then.

There’s moral precedent that being a greedy lying cunt can get your privilege to life revoked

I hope we will see.

I know gender and sex aren’t the same thing. You could tell that because I provided two meanings for gender, only one of which was sex. Your problem seems to be I don’t accept your definition of gender.

But this isn’t really your problem, because it’s not your definition. Instead, it’s a newer definition that’s been tacked onto the word, that you have accepted and propagated, and now are jumping on others for not doing the same. I ‘d be lying if I said I don’t understand why you’d want to change the meaning, to make it something else. It’s a good word for you. It’s a word that is already known, so it’s in the collective mindset. A new word would be harder to get ‘out there’, while another (weaker - lesser used) word wouldn’t generate as much buzz and discussion when you misuse it. It’s a cunning thing to do. It’s also unacceptable and vile. If we’re changing words’ meanings, then you’re welcome to find out

That’s stupid.

Has in the meanwhile been changed to mean “I concede that I am in the wrong regarding this matter and will take myself out of the conversation for future replies”.

To reinforce this change in meaning, I’ll be blocking you now. Have a good rest of the day.

Gender is a synonim for sex. It is also used when speaking about words - in some languages, words have a gender.

Rejecting science (biology in this case) is one major component of religion. Others are dogma (a set of principles that are taken as axioms and never contested, eg gender can be whatever you want it to be), heresy (eg offering a scientific view that differs from dogma, like the fact that biology presents two genders), censorship and apostasy (removing such an article for disagreeing with the dogma, regardless of scientific facts).

Seems to me like Dawkins slightly overreacted, but it’s understandable because he did so based on the religious-like fervor exhibited by those who would remove an article published by a biologist, debating biological classification, because they disagree with its implications.

For all the talk about the unscientific right, it seems to me like the left ignores science just as much when it’s not what they want to hear - what their group has already agreed to be true. This video comes to mind: https://youtu.be/zB_OApdxcno

I shit on Israel and their propaganda department

Hey, thanks for taking the time to write that out, it’s a cool bit of context to better understand why you guys have votes for some jobs.

Since some people are getting a paywall I’ll post the article text here:

Richard Dawkins has resigned from an atheism foundation over its “imposition” of a “new religion” of transgenderism.

Prof Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and atheist, stepped down from the board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) on Saturday after it censored an article supporting the belief that gender is biological.

Prof Dawkins accused the group of caving to the “hysterical squeals” of cancel culture after it deleted the article from its website, saying it was a “mistake” to have published it.

His resignation followed that of two other scientists, Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker, who accused the foundation of imposing an ideology with the “dogma, blasphemy, and heretics” of a religion.

The scientists’ resignations come after FFRF’s Freethought Now! website published a piece last month by Kat Grant, entitled “What is a Woman?”, which argued that “any attempt to define womanhood on biological terms is inadequate” and that “a woman is whoever she says she is”.

In response to the piece, Prof Coyne, a fellow board member and biologist, wrote an article last week called “Biology is not Bigotry”, in which he defended “the biological definition of ‘woman’ based on gamete type” – or reproductive cells.

However, FFRF later pulled the article after a backlash and released a lengthy statement apologising for the “distress” it had caused.

“Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth,” co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote.

“Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values and principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.”

‘Quasi-religious’ ideology

Following the atheist foundation’s decision to unpublish his article, Prof Coyne accused the group of peddling a “quasi-religious” ideology.

“That is a censorious behavior I cannot abide,” he wrote in an email. “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that ‘distressing’ and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.”

“The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (‘a woman is whoever she says she is’), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”

Prof Pinker, the US-Canadian psychologist, announced his resignation from the board by lamenting that the FFRF was “no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics”.

Prof Dawkins described publishing Grant’s “silly and unscientific” article as a “minor error of judgment”, but that the decision to remove Prof Coyne’s rebuttal was “an act of unseemly panic”.

He continued: “Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own advisory board. A board which I now leave with regret.”

Grant is a non-binary author and fellow at the FFRF, focusing on state versus Church issues that specifically impact the LGBTQ-plus community.

In their November article, Grant argued a woman cannot be defined as someone with a vagina, uterus or the ability to conceive, as this would exclude intersex people, women who have hysterectomies and those who have gone through menopause.

Grant claimed using biology to define female identity is “inadequate” and alleged that the views of groups who have fought against gender ideology “disregard both medical science and lived experience”.

‘New definition of woman’

In his response to Grant’s article, Prof Coyne accused the author of attempting “to force ideology onto nature” in order to “concoct a new definition of ‘woman’”.

“Why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality,” he wrote. “Instead, in biology ‘sex’ is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells.

“It is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights.”

Founded in 1976, the FFRF is a US non-profit that promotes the separation of church and state.

Ms Laurie Gaylor, the FFRF president, said: “We have had the greatest respect for Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and are grateful that they sat on our honorary board for so many years.

“We do not feel that support for LGBTQ rights against the religious backlash in the United States is mission creep. This growing difference of opinion probably made such a parting inevitable.”

lol not even 25 years in the game, what a noob

That’s a great argument until you realize the rest of the country (the part that didn’t speak) literally couldn’t decide which is worse or just didn’t care. So they did speak, and what they said was “hwbennfswbebnsjdjbdbshdukabw”.

Time to stop the Israeli social experiment, or whatever the fuck it was that they tried to do.

Need for speed heat is like 4 bucks, as a former 13yo boy I woulda liked it

Biden could…

He won’t.

And nothing of value was lost.