iNow

Yes, though it's not binary and instead exists along a spectrum

Or maybe subject to the death penalty!

Of course not. We do it all the time to eat. Even vegetarians are monsters according to this loosey goosey suggestion. Mmm.... roast goose sounds yummy

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sound+mind https://ddclawfirm.com/staten-island-estate-planning/mean-sound-mind/

It will vary from one location to the next, or from state to state, and while central governments will offer recommendations on how best to distribute, decisions on how best to prioritize delivery for the most part will be made by local officials.

This is a thread about educational opportunities and how those relate to skin color. It seems rather a red herring to suggest schools are differentially teaching or accepting/rejecting students for admission based on Gauchers Disease, something that only seems to occur in some Ashkenazi Jews.

I don’t think this needs to be so tense. I read the comment from Zap to be “I don’t understand what you’re saying. I want to. I think the left sometimes struggles to understand stuff like this too and that’s usually when they accuse the right of racism.” That’s different than “you’re being racist, MigL.” You're not being racist, but you might be taking things more personally than intended. ✌️

More specifically, the tires are already worn asymmetrically on one side. A simple alignment won’t remove the laterally biased wear. They’ll still be more worn more on one side even after the alignment gets done. To rebalance the wear on the tire, you need to overcorrect for a while and intentionally over-wear the other side for a bit... all with the knowledge that this overcorrection is only temporary until the wear is again balanced across the entire tire.

Glued long 2” wide strips together, alternating dark to light to dark. Looked kinda like the US flag. Then cut that into strips, flipped every other one, then glued again

Built a chessboard for my daughters. Walnut and maple. Half lap joints held by pegs for the corners. Pleased with how it’s turned out

Nice analogy The rambling actually began much much sooner than at this point, but it was a good post overall, so no worries 👍

This discussion of affirmative action being a type of racism reminds me somewhat of the paradox of tolerance where ostracizing others for being intolerant is described as itself being a form of intolerance.

You did a fine job, but there’s so much nuance and emotion and history and baggage around this topic that 3 people reading the exact same words will come away with 3 different interpretations. I don’t think it’s fair for MigL to describe affirmative action as a continuance of racism, but I also know where he’s coming from and why it might appear that way to some.

Interestingly, if economic inequality wasn’t so bad in our country, then it wouldn’t matter quite so much who scores those select few slots in the pinnacle education institutions for a leg up on others. Yes. It is indeed very much both.

I don’t believe anyone is suggesting the latter. There is, however, opportunity to stop using the system itself to keep further focusing benefits into the coffers of an already extremely benefited few.

I’ll defer to a chemist for a better response than mine, but I don’t believe you can mix them at once. You’d need to setup the engine to burn one or the other. Consider looking at dual fuel portable generators to see how they function. You must select LPG or gasoline, but can’t feed the engine with both simultaneously.

There are morphological differences between every living being unless they are clones, including identical twins. Further suggesting that physical differences (such as different melanin content in the skin) is the fundamental source of economic inequality in the world is absurd in the extreme. You may as well be suggesting inequality comes from some people having curly hair and others having straight. If history is any guide here, they will simply keep repeating the same ridiculous assertions and responding with the equivalent of “nuh uh!” to any valid criticisms or counterpoints. Fine, but your core mistake here is the suggestion that it must be either one or the other. That’s a false dichotomy since any rational view of the economic inequality we’re experiencing today must acknowledge and accept that there are important elements of both that are related in critical ways. One must consider the entire system as a whole, not just individual elements in isolation. Some people have far too much. Some people have far too little. Both of these things can be true in parallel and both can be addressed at the same time to improve the overall balance. Your stance ignores the fact that too often people who are equally or even more qualified also regularly don’t get those jobs and functions. The evidence on this subject is abundant and consistent, and you should seriously consider revising your stance which today doesn’t seem to be in any way tethered to reality.

Yes

A distinction without a difference?

Unless perhaps they hope to solve those issues by accident and absent any meaningful intention or purpose

And yet we stumble at the start since so few even see the problem, and fewer still acknowledge or adequately understand it. The graphic I shared was about helping us better see it. I made no policy recommendations, but that may be an interesting oath to pursue.

I don’t really trust anybody who doesn’t cuss/swear

I forgot about it until you mentioned it here

No. Of course not, but quite likely. Yes. I’m aware, but you should’ve increased the font size on that IF bc it’s so big. I see it more as an issue of values, priorities, and critical thinking, not about the mongering of chaos as you imply. I’ve been paying attention to this stuff for a long time now and I’m no longer able to kick at the proverbial football Lucy keeps consistently pulling away. I don’t see how. The conspiracy thinking and bubbled information ecosystems have become far too entrenched and commonplace... so much so that challenges to it are often conflated with attacks on personal identity... but perhaps I’ve simply moved beyond your referenced optimism and into pragmatism and cynicism (realism?).

FINALLY