yerwhat01010
And why stop at respiratory viruses? Sexual infections cause all kinds of harm too - the obvious response is to ban sex. When people want to reproduce they can just use IVF - thank God we live in the modern era.
And by the way, do you have any idea how many people are killed every year in road accidents? I propose we ban cars. Let's also ban walking in case anybody trips over. And let's ban eating so that no-one ever chokes on their food.
Am I doing this right?
Tell that to Jacinda Ardern: https://www.magic.co.nz/home/news/2021/03/peter-williams--ja...
This absolutely does happen in the UK, although I'd pick our health over the US's any day of the week.
I searched. I can't figure out what these videos are about from the titles/thumbnails, and I'll be damned if I'm actually going to watch these things. Can you summarize?
This graph would suggest she does:
Really? The most basic definition of "discrimination" is "to note or distinguish as different." Are you saying we should never be allowed to observe that, in reality, sometimes two things really are different from each other?
Considering that voicing your support for Hubbard comes with basically no personal or professional cost, while voicing your opposition can cost you dealy, I'm going to assume that since most people have remained silent then the majority agrees with Anna Vanbellinghen.
Which sports are these? In which physical sports do women have an advantage over men? Can you name one?
Yes. Male puberty confers lifelong physical advantages on the body in terms of muscle mass, heart size, lung capacity and bone density. That's why men dominate women physically in every sport, which is why women have their own special sporting categories so that they stand a chance. Hormone therapy reduces these advantage but it doesn't eliminate them.
> Is it fair to trans athletes?
Probably not, but then is it fair to wheelchair-bound athletes that they're physically incapable of competing with Olympians and so need their own separate event? Maybe the cruel reality of life is that we can't always accommodate everybody?
Also: people with Klinefelter Syndrome are male.
* X – Female
* XX – Female
* XXY – Male
* XY – Male
* XYY – Male
* XXXY – Male
https://colinwright.substack.com/p/sex-chromosome-variants-a...
Yes, it could - by people who don't know what the word "sex" means. Sex isn't about chromosomes, it's about gametes, and sex chromosome variants aren't separate sexes. For example, people with Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY) are male. This isn't hard.
https://colinwright.substack.com/p/sex-chromosome-variants-a...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1G2lyeWYAYSQnn?format=jpg&name=...
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/2021
That's its full text. You can read it, it's short.
Some highlights are that the bill mandates (that's mandates - not prevents) that Texan schoolchildren are educated about:
* "the history of Native Americans;"
* "the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong;"
* "the history and importance of the civil right movement"
* "the history and importance of the women's suffrage movement"
* The Indian Removal Act
* the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850;
* Brown v. Board of Education;
* The Underground Railroad
The bill also mandates that Texan schoolchildren learn about such historical figures as MLK, Frederick Douglass, Sally Hemings and Cesar Chavez, to name but a few.
So tell me: who wants to prevent a "historically accurate picture of the United States" from being taught in schools - those who support a bill that requires children to be taught about the history of slavery, Indian genocide, the civil rights movement and white supremacy, or those who oppose such a bill?
And I've only talked about what what the bill requires. What does it prevent? What does HB3979 ban from Texan classroom? Again, I encourage you to read the whole thing yourself, but I know that most people don't click through to the source, so I'll quote again.
Some of the things that HB3979 bans from being taught to Texan schoolchildren include that:
* "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;"
* "an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's race;"
* "an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex;"
Similar wording appears in most of the anti-CRT bills working their way through state legislatures.
You need to understand this: critical race theorists want to teach the above. They oppose these bills (and lie about their contents) because they want to discriminate on the basis of race, make people feel discomfort, guilt and anguish based on their race, hold entire races collectively responsible for the actions of individual members of that race, and engage in racial stereotyping and scapegoating. The sooner you realise this, the sooner you'll be able to make sense of our current moment.
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3bjbgn/fake-drug-test-foilin...
And incidentally, one of the things I appreciate about my current company is that there isn't any politics at work. Seriously, I can't imagine anyone at my company getting into political debates on company time. Why bother? If anyone at my workplace started dragging colleagues into contentious political debates of no direct relevance to the job, I'd consider that not only unnecessary but staggeringly unprofessional. How common is this at other companies? Is it a US vs UK thing?
https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e
In particular he wrote:
> We have to be careful to celebrate that progress proportionally, though. I was dismayed to see the argument advanced in text and graphics on [Employee 1’s] post that this list should be considered part of a regime that eventually could lead to genocide. That's just not an appropriate or proportionate comparison to draw. > > And further more, I think it makes us less able to admit mistakes and accept embarrassment, without being tempted to hide transgressions in the past. If the stakes for any kind of bad judgement in this area is a potential link to a ladder that ends in genocide, we're off on a wrong turn.
And in another post:
> I can appreciate how those examples raise the sensitivity of anything related to names, minorities, and power dynamics. > > Still, I don't think we serve the cause of opposing colonial regimes or racist ideology by connecting their abusive acts around names to this incident. And I don't think we serve an evaluation of you and others making fun of names in a Campfire session by drawing that connection either. > > We can recognize that forceful renaming by a colonial regime is racist and wrong while also recognizing that having a laugh at customer names behind their back is inappropriate and wrong without equating or linking the two.
I certainly wouldn't call that "aggressive"; it reads as polite, reasoned and measured to me, and even if DHH is wrong (I don't think he is) I fail to see how this is outside the bounds of what it should be acceptable for a leader to say to an employee.
Coraline Ada Ehmke?