iNow

I didn’t neg you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

No, but isn’t it obvious that I quoted the other part of your previous post and asked specifically about that? Are you making this difficult intentionally?

Because that’s a different label and not equivalent to calling black citizens “colored.” It doesn’t matter. I can’t force you to be more aware of or empathetic about how your words affect people.

With bated breath I wait 🙄

I don’t disagree with you, which is why I didn’t comment on that part. Again, no disagreement here. Still unsure why you pushed back originally on the poverty and theft connection, though. You’ve just acknowledged it in our follow up.

1963 called. They want their misused labels back, but say you can keep the hoses and the dogs.

Do you disagree that increases in poverty relates strongly to increases in thefts, that the two are linked across multiple dimensions and for obvious reasons?

Maybe I'm growing jaded and cynical, but I seriously doubt it actually matters what Charon shares. Won’t change anyones mind.

“Youth” sports or “high school” sports also have “age” or “school being attended” as the criteria. Yet again, sex becomes an irrelevant holdover from a dying discriminatory past. I know it’s hard to fathom, but better qualifications and classifications than “pees standing up” or “pees sitting down” really do exist when forming leagues and sports divisions!

Unless, of course, one is a non-binary athlete.

Unsure how this is a problem since one of the classification mechanisms I offered was to group athletes based on size and strength. Will you help clarify why you believe gender assigned at birth is relevant under such a system? I agree, which is why it's such a good thing I've never proposed anything even remotely similar to this.

Can you explain why gender should remain in any way relevant when grouping and classifying sports by size and ability seems much more appropriate? Consider it similar to the difference between junior varsity versus varsity, or Division 1 versus Division 2. There's really no need to keep the distinction between male and female (as classified at birth) other than "that's how we've always done it."

I'm just happy I know enough to call it a receptacle and not an outlet.

You're absolutely right. We should do exactly that, and we've already discussed this in the thread you acknowledged you haven't read. Categorize based on ability, size, strength, or other relevant criteria. Ignore gender and genital plumbing. Problem solved.

I, for one, hope they’ll be very concerned about incandescent bulbs and will have switched to LEDs by then.

It's ambiguous that way

Trump told Fox today that he wouldn’t go back to twitter and plans to stay on his failing extreme right platform, Truth. Speaking of truth, Trump doesn’t often tell it so he’ll almost certainly come back anyway bc he’s also an insecure attention whore.

The argument is that everyone wants to be selected based on merit. By announcing the demographic criteria, it may suggest the appointed person was chosen for reasons other than their competence, experience, and qualifications. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the position.

Harder to put the brakes on people intentionally lying and disinforming others, and yes. The ban on Trump would surely be reversed. That may not be a bad thing, though. The pushback against him has waned since he’s stuck shouting his bile on extreme right platforms with limited audiences / where he’s preaching to the converted. Putting him back in the public eye, however, might help remind the public more broadly how nice the quiet has been during his absence. Unfortunately, good ideas don’t seem to be winning out in the marketplace of ideas.

And yet you dismiss the arrogance of explaining god(s) INTO existence using our own devices. Strange hypocrisy, but appreciate you highlighting it. Much like your imaginary god(s), your perception of me being upset is also imaginary. I really couldn't care much less about you than I do now. As already shared, I mostly find you boring. I definitely don't find you upsetting.

Much like your god(s) If you plan on using logic to bootstrap your faith, then you should abandon the tautologies you seem so partial to There is no divide between science and belief in god(s). It’s all quite well explained using basic psychology and sociology.

No, this is a false equivalence in multiple respects. YOU’RE throwing in unfounded assumptions based on wish thinking, fantasy, and human mythological thinking. I’m challenging those assumptions as not being worth the bandwidth you absorbed to post them. Precisely why you need science to reject your conclusions when they’re so clearly flawed. You’re fooling yourself and asking others to join you in being fooled. No thanks. No, I’m gonna need more dressing before I swallow this word salad.

Why not unicorns or the tooth fairy then, since we’re “just looking for another path of enquiry?”

Governor Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate 70% of all math books currently used in Florida. He says the other 12% are fine