|
Prism posted:I'm not likely to give Crowder the benefit of the doubt here. Casually mispronouncing a Turkish-American as 'Professor Chink' because you can't be bothered to look up the actual pronunciation is at least passive-aggressive racism. Then again knowing his usual bad faith shtick, maybe it's deliberate so that we spend more time arguing about that than the rest of his lolworthy bit.
|
# ? Nov 24, 2019 16:42 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 01:24 |
|
Guavanaut posted:
Yeah, I'd bet that the point is so he can get away with using a racial slur while hiding behind a fig leaf of deniability.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2019 06:01 |
|
Has a union or a newspaper ever declined to endorse a candidate for president? The FOP backing Trump came up in a discussion last night. The quick bit of it is: Bro: Everyone thinks cops are racist assholes Me: The FOP endorsed Trump, who is a racist rear end in a top hat Bro: The DNC wouldn't meet with cops Me: That's no excuse for endorsing a racist rear end in a top hat. Bro: They had to endorse someone Me: Why? I realize that the FOP is super into Trump, but had they decided not to be bigoted dickheads, could they have said something along the lines of "The DNC wouldn't meet with us so we cannot endorse the democratic candidate. On the other hand it's loving Trump, so we're not endorsing him either"?
|
# ? Nov 25, 2019 17:18 |
|
There's certainly nothing compelling them to endorse anyone, no, but they aren't going to pass on it because it's expected of them and they want to feel like they are throwing their weight around. I think that I have seen it happen more often in the opposite sense, where there are two local candidates who are very similar and a local union or paper will basically say 'yea ok whatever, we're good' because there isn't a meaningful policy difference and they don't really want to stump for one person on personality and risk losing. If I recall correctly, the National Review was strongly anti-Trump and as a magazine opposed his candidacy. I don't believe they ever turned that around and endorsed him when he was the Republican pick.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2019 17:40 |
|
I seem to remember a few newspapers explicitly not endorsing Trump for president in 2016, but I can't remember which.
|
# ? Nov 25, 2019 17:49 |
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:I seem to remember a few newspapers explicitly not endorsing Trump for president in 2016, but I can't remember which. More newspapers that endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012 either endorsed Clinton or had No Endorsement than endorsed Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
|
# ? Nov 25, 2019 19:13 |
|
It came from FB: Jerry Duboise Sr. is in Eight Mile, Alabama. The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment?" I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it. The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too. It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security. If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact). And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts. Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger "Ponzi scheme" than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot (oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a "benefit", as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they borrowed the money doesn't mean that our investments were a charity! Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government. Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it. Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income. 99% of people won't forward this. Will you?
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 18:11 |
|
Has anyone asked them what the recipient of any other pension policy is usually called?
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 18:26 |
|
It also ignore the reality that Social Security is not a personal retirement account, but a collective anti-poverty benefit originally set up for the aged. The first person to receive a monthly check had only contributed for 3 years when she turned 65 but received benefits until she turned 100. "Who was the first to receive Social Security benefits? During the Social Security program's start-up period between January 1937 and December 1939, the SSA only made one-time, lump-sum payments. According to SSA historians, Ernest Ackerman was the first recipient of Social Security benefits -- 17 cents, paid to him in January 1937. The first person to receive monthly benefits was Ida May Fuller from Vermont, who retired in November 1939 and started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65. In the three years that Fuller worked under the program, she contributed a total of $24.75. Her first benefit check was for $22.54 and she went on collecting benefits for 35 years, until 1975, when she died at age 100. In this time she collected a total of $22,888.92."
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 18:32 |
|
Imagine how lovely it must be to pay into social security benefits that you know you won't receive. Now imagine not getting medicare How horrible it must all be. As a millenial I don't sympathize with any of it as I eat my 22-dollar avocado and tide pod bespoke toast Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Dec 2, 2019 |
# ? Dec 2, 2019 19:24 |
|
Clinton wanted to invest Social Security money in the stock market, here is an L.A. Times article from 1999 quoting Alan Greenspan as calling it "socialism." What's hilarious is the article predicts Social Security going broke in "15 years" when the Boomers start to retire. This is more evidence that the coming Boomer retirement apocalypse is just a cudgel to transfer government funds to private companies. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jan-31-fi-3406-story.html LA Times posted:
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 20:37 |
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 21:12 |
I think the newest piece of culture referenced here is the Charlie Brown Christmas, from 1965.
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 21:21 |
|
The whole thing really has a "gently caress you dad" vibe
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 21:28 |
DariusLikewise posted:The whole thing really has a "gently caress you dad" vibe I'm just saying, that guy's dad is definitely dead.
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 21:44 |
|
Same except it's going to be christmukkah and we have a Star of David tree topper and also we just watch enjoyable movies, sometimes and sometimes not including the classics, based on how we feel Is what I would say to people that share this if I wasn't afraid of them shooting me and my family
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 21:45 |
|
Has there ever been anyone who was offended by "Two birds one stone?" I mean, outside of Twitter?
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 21:46 |
|
SimonCat posted:Has there ever been anyone who was offended by "Two birds one stone?" There was some PETA thing asking people not to say it at some point. And since PETA likes to get free publicity by saying ridiculous poo poo all the time, it's safe to say that no real person is offended by it.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 21:48 |
Sure showed all those liberals (?) what’s up.
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 22:02 |
|
ponzicar posted:There was some PETA thing asking people not to say it at some point. And since PETA likes to get free publicity by saying ridiculous poo poo all the time, it's safe to say that no real person is offended by it. Speaking as a vegetarian most of my life, and former vegan, please don't listen to PETA about anything They are an insane asylum of crazies
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 22:40 |
|
ponzicar posted:There was some PETA thing asking people not to say it at some point. And since PETA likes to get free publicity by saying ridiculous poo poo all the time, it's safe to say that no real person is offended by it. Yeah PETA news that hits me is 100% crazies screaming about something PETA did to make them scream
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 22:44 |
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 23:32 |
|
How many of those years did the Republicans control Congress? And I watch Christmas movies whenever I want, so the fact that you're complaining about Christmas movies during the Christmas season leads me to respond: Triggered much?
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 23:47 |
|
If only
|
# ? Dec 2, 2019 23:59 |
|
It's an 'opposite day' poster in two ways because not only did that poo poo not happen, he mostly got the Bush admin to do the things that he wanted them to do (though the main part he did want, the Caliphate in the Middle East under his guidance didn't happen)
|
# ? Dec 3, 2019 00:17 |
|
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 05:36 |
|
Unless you live in like, France or Iceland, you're barely shaving anything off your CO2 emissions by running a BEV anyway, because the electricity grid is that dirty. Add in the cost of manufacturing a new car, and the cost of a car at new, you're probably best off getting a hybrid that's a few years old.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 16:00 |
|
I love broke brained boomer memes like these because any rational person's reaction should be "But..that's also bad and more should be done about that as well?" and not "Look at this privileged girl taking her life for granted while the system I advocate for gladly exploits children in the 3rd world!"
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 16:50 |
|
I will never forgive Greta Thunberg for having invented and implemented capitalism worldwide
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 17:02 |
|
She literally brought up how there were people worse off than her. None of these people actually engage with reality.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 17:29 |
|
1. Sexing human remains always carries a caveat of "most likely this biological sex" and can vary by analyst in edge cases. 2. Quite frequently the skeleton is fragmentary enough that, well, good luck. 3. The study of gender in archaeology is a thing, and the spectrum and performance of gender models are used a lot. Quality of research varies and yes, some of it is hamstrung by pre-conceived biases being applied by researchers.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 23:43 |
|
Got to use fake movie archaeologist who found the Holy Grail or whatever, because a real archaeologist is just going to be some know-it-all egghead who starts talking about Two-Spirit people
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 23:53 |
|
They also see nothing wrong with the second image.
|
# ? Dec 5, 2019 23:58 |
|
KiteAuraan posted:1. Sexing human remains always carries a caveat of "most likely this biological sex" and can vary by analyst in edge cases. Stupid Archaeologist: This was an enormous find, because based upon the grave goods and the method of burial, we can accurately posit that this was a member of a specific social class, a person who fit a role outside the conventionally-understood modern male and female gender binary. A person in this gender classification would have had special duties in their society, including-- Me, a Serious Cynic: It's got the Dick Bone Stupid Archaeologist: While, biologically speaking, the skeleton could most likely be classified as belonging to a male human, the role within their community put them outside of and--in some ways--above what we understand to be "male" and "female" gender roles. In fact, there are many societies which even today demonstrate gender different in classi-- Me, a Smart Biology-Knower: He had a doodad when he was alive. Checkmate.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2019 00:00 |
|
KiteAuraan posted:2. Quite frequently the skeleton is fragmentary enough that, well, good luck. This is something everyone kind of things about fossils, they just kind of show up fully made and with every part accounted for. I was talking about Lucy with some 10th graders and they were kind of puzzled and amazed that they found less than half of it.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2019 02:04 |
|
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 20:00 |
Just switch those pictures with a tumbleweed to show nobody wants to live in middle America.
|
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 20:08 |
|
Congresspeople are well known for having a direct hand in the governance of their home states, that's why they meet in washington dc for business.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 20:18 |
Or just a big sign that says middle America with a big picture of meth in the middle.
|
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 20:45 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 01:24 |
|
KiteAuraan posted:1. Sexing human remains always carries a caveat of "most likely this biological sex" and can vary by analyst in edge cases. Hell, even just within the binary they occasionally get things wrong. Find a grave where the body is clad in armour surrounded by weapons? Yep, clearly a dude! What, the skeleton appears biologically female? No way, that's just a dude with narrow shoulders! Even physical evidence mounts up that this person was biologically female, and some other records suggest she was considered a woman in her time? No way! Everybody knows only men ever did things with weapons! All sorts of research is deeply coloured by the cultural preconceptions of whoever is doing the it, and it's a constant struggle to try and mitigate this.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 21:15 |