All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

They offer reputation. Career advancement is highly dependent on publication history and impact. Getting into a prestigious publication means your work will more likely be read and cited. Because highly reputable journals can charge high publication fees (because it’s in such high demand), they get to set the industry norm, which other less reputable journals/publishers get to follow. It does cost money to develop and maintain that reputation for rigour and impact (i.e. good science). But yeah it’s exploitative AF. There are attempts for less profit-motivated publications… But making those rigorous while still being democratic is hard

Maybe they will stop screaming when we stop murdering them. https://www.statista.com/chart/30779/map-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-people-killed/

Interpretation note: there is a smaller list of cases where it’s confirmed they were murdered for being trans. There is a gray area between likely and unlikely that trans-hate was the motive.

Gotta love how the more “Applied” a field is, the more “Impure” it is.

Sure, but Donald Trump is even less smart and even more off-putting. Any extra time of him speaking would be a positive for her campaign.

Yet that doesn’t seem to detract from the reality that Trump resonates with a significant proportion of voters. I am certainly seeing genuine enthusiasm for Harris as well. Neither of these points have too much to do with how they would perform in a debate against each other on grounds of argument. Certainly respective optics will matter, but I feel like Trump’s optics have already shed the folks he’s going to lose, with very few hesitant conservatives remaining and many fanatics who will vote for him no matter which lines he crosses

It’s not about whether or not the meme is dismissive of philosophy. It’s that the writer clearly doesn’t understand the basics of these fields and the kinds of questions they ask/answer, including science. Heck metaphysics isn’t even a separate field, it’s a sub-field of philosophy.

Don’t you mean appreciating the beauty in imperfections?

You don’t need to be a therapist or psychologist to not shoot someone having a mental health crisis

This framing makes it seem like Biden is going against the majority congressional sentiment, but he is not. The US congress, overall, is supportive of sending military support to Israel, as evidenced by their passing bills other aid bills, which is a slower process.

I mean there you go, Toyota’s are appliances. They have to look bland because their style has to remain inoffensive after decades on the road.

That being said, I’m impressed with how much style they’ve managed to put on the new Prius while still aiming for long-term fleet vehicle role. I also like what they’re trying to do with the BZ4 styling wise, even if it’s a compromised first gen product.

There’s also always the Supra and LC500 :3

The comic is not implying that every single time a woman says no to man, that man will do something bad. It is saying that often when a woman wants to say no to a man, they have to do an internal calculation to answer questions like “Can I trust this man to respond okay to a No? How likely will they say something rude, or escalate to harassment? What do I do if he gets physically persistent? Is he going to get pissed off if I say no and come after me when I leave?”

Usually the answer is “he’s probably fine”, but women do have to go through the calculation much more than men typically. And that’s kinda fucked up.

The comic is saying “just say no” ignores/dismisses the non-negligible risk of just saying no.

Yeah, fuck the media. Instead, you should try talking to the women close to you about their experiences turning men down. Some might have no issues and think nothing of it, some might have good reason to be calculating. Don’t take it from me.

Exactly, you should stop listening to media and start listening to the experiences of women close to you instead.

People get butthurt over things others do that don’t affect them all the time.

People also get buttgurt over things others do that indirectly affect them or violate their ethical principles.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell them apart and sometimes there’s a bit of overlap when worldviews conflict.

We live in a society.

Yeah I wasn’t disagreeing. Teenagers are indeed annoying as shit. They’re also bright, depressed, confused, fired up, determined, lost, immature, too mature, and on and on. None of this negates the importance us adults having the maturity to not dwell on our bitterness or frustration over youth and focus on being a positive influence when we have the opportunity.

I mean you could maybe try being a compassionate adult around them. Attidudes like this are what contribute to poor inter-generational relationships. It’s why boomers blame everything on millenials and why millenials just respond with “ok boomer”. Teenagers are people, their brains are developing, some are figuring out their shit, some never will bother to. And they will become older folks who are people just the same. So it behoves us to try being a positive influence around them rather than trying to fuck them.

Part of the problem is that from a social history standpoint, libertarianism typically has attracted people looking for an ideology to justify their selfishness.

The ideology that tends to attract people who value social organization while minimizing a forceful overarching government has been anarchism.

I think people get too hung up on the question of genocidal intent in this conflict. That’s not to dismiss the importance of the word and legal implications. I came across this opinion that expresses what I mean much better: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2023/12/14/israel-palestinian-gaza-war-genocide-definitions-discussions/71904125007/

Understanding and explaining how people may develop a perspective is not a defense of those people or their perspective. Simply saying “They’re morons, end of story” is unproductive. Denouncing a nuanced examination of the problem of distrust in healthcare is counterproductive. You can humanize without condoning. And clearly the intention was to address the problem in a meaningful way.

Or maybe I’m mistaken and the solution is “Stop being morons. End of story.” /s

You forgot, corporations are people too. And who are the most important people in the world??