Buy our premium package for 40% less microplastics, guaranteed*!

Does this confirm that giraffes are brown with yellow lines, rather than yellow with brown spots? This could be huge for the giraffe community.

Maybe it’s a really, really deep basin for washing all the dishes we put off.

I will never call it “X,” just like I will never call Facebook “Meta.”

Boomer comic 🤮

I’m done with that place.

Alternative take: Piracy is, at worst, morally neutral, and does not have a significant adverse effect on the profits of the people who produce media.

Calm down.

I wish companies would stop with subscription models.

It’s so cute!

I’m just going to keep calling it Twitter, and I’m honestly unsure of why everyone else, media outlets included, aren’t doing the same.

Non-paywalled link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230816112231/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/16/opinion/maui-fire-lahaina-hawaii.html

This is your world on late-stage capitalism.

I don’t get it.

My child brain always thought Hariyama’s orange chest thing was a big nose.

I think I’d rather not give the company money at all.

I think we might be doomed.

If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights ‘ideological capture’?

Yes. Standing behind an idea doesn’t require that you censor all attempts at disagreement. Even the most mundane, universal, and virtually unquestionable ideas should come under attack, lest we forget why the attacks are wrong and lose the ability to explain why our convictions are right in the first place.

In other words, it’s easy to argue that racism is bad. If the only way society can convince people of this is by harassment of those who disagree, we evidently don’t remember exactly why racism is bad. We should be drawing those who advocate for abhorrent moral evils into the limelight and using the superiority of our convictions to demonstrate why they’re wrong, not censoring them and doing nothing to prevent more misguided people from going astray.

If indeed gender and sex are uncontrovertibly distinct, it should be trivial for academics to address arguments to the contrary. A refusal to engage suggests that one’s ideas are flimsy rather than strong. A good case-in-point is the user below who has decided to find an arbitrary reason to dismiss my arguments rather than addressing them. That reeks of loose conviction.

If I were to link you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against gender ideology, would you consider that it may truly be a problem?

As someone with a degree in one of the social sciences, I don’t say this as a complete outsider.

I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren’t allowed, you can’t rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.