What a simplistic, destructive take.
Nuance exists in this world. In a free society, a distinction needs to be made between real, credible threats and simple hyperbole.
Also, “hate speech” is a real term, and it doesn’t mean ‘saying you hate someone.’
The wrong candidate.
A review of the account revealed that “Watermelon cloth” regularly posted content critical of social inequalities in the United States, the Ukrainian and Israeli governments
Disinformation or common sense?
Tubgirl.
If this is the kind of thought you have in the shower, you might wanna get your pipes checked for lead.
Not a term, but a lack thereof:
People I have to regularly interact with for work have been excluding “to be”, especially with “needs”, and it’s infuriating.
This issue needs escalated. That report needs fleshed out. Let me know if anything needs cleared up.
Whoever wins…
We lose.
Ha! I use it because I just don’t want the use of “languid” in the language to languish in anguish.
Like I’m lying in the backseat of my parents’ car in the 90s watching the powerlines and the clouds languidly roll by.
FYI, it’s duct tape. For taping ducts.
Say it with me once again:
Fuck Nintendo.
They’re the Disney of the video game industry.
This is one of the rare times Newsom actually did the right thing with his veto power.
That bill was written by/for big AI companies to secure their hold on consumer AI and squeeze out open source R&D. If it had passed, the only people who could afford AI R&D would be already-established, rich, greedy corporations with no regard for humanity past the wealth they can extract therefrom.
Sure, the bill would still be bad for big AI companies in the sense that it would increase their liability and operational costs, but that’d be a small price to pay to eliminate their only competition: free, community-driven, open source development.
It was the “refusal to learn” bit that threw me.
Nothing wrong with not liking a language or having no use for it, but “refusing to learn” implies that there are good reasons to learn and resources to do so, but they refuse to, regardless. Or maybe that’s just my own inference.
Anyway, sorry for being presumptuous. Hard day at work followed by a hard day at home. It’s safer to be rude to strangers online than to people I have to deal with regularly IRL.
Wait, you prefer someone who’s willfully ignorant and intentionality hampers their ability to communicate with most of the world?
Do you also prefer someone who proudly proclaims that they don’t read books?
While I do agree that unity is the way to go in the fight for rights, I can understand why one would want to separate the T from the LGB. It’s an issue of consistency - L, G, and B all describe sexuality, while T describes gender. The two are related, but ultimately separate concepts - one does not inform the other, and grouping them can hypothetically lead ignorant people to think that they are directly related, which could hypothetically lead to non-straight cisfolk experiencing more oppression than they would have otherwise experienced due to the perceived association with transfolk, as non-conforming sexuality is more generally accepted today than non-conforming gender.
That being said, it’s all hypothetical, and what matters is the reality that people from all spectra of nonconformity are regularly oppressed, and in many places, the oppressors treat anyone LGBT+ with the same disdain. So grouping them is vital for the sake of the most oppressed.
The creator of the format is documented as having confirmed the pronunciation is “jif”, but I don’t care. Once he created it and put it into the world, he relinquished his control.
Like we did with Occupy Wall Street or are doing now for Palestine?
Oh, we’ve known. There just isn’t anything we can do about it.
I, for one, welcome our new cyborg mushroom overlords.
It’s not, though. This is the first sentence in the article:
It can be inferred, of course, from that line, but isn’t explicitly stated.