No! No, see that’s wrong; it’s being exaggerated again!

I’m honestly mostly surprised by the sign that reads “IF YOU DONT C WHAT YOU WANT WE AINT GOT IT” - I wasn’t aware that the letter ‘c’ was used to mean ‘see’ in that time period.

I recently bought a new car and found that, basing upon the difference showed on my speedometer and the google maps displayed speed, it’s closer to 5% over actual speed until around 100km/h when it falls to a flat 5km/h over (tested up to around 130km/h displayed speed). All cars are calibrated to show higher speeds on speedometers than actual speed, but the variance isn’t always as high as 10%.

Can confirm; I was indecently assaulted by a woman around 30 years older than me when I freshly turned 18. Took me a while to deal with the cognitive dissonance between wanting to be wanted and wanting bodily autonomy. While most of them are men, gross people are always gonna be gross.

A new xpac for Diablo II (2000) was released three months ago and Age of Empires II (1999) has had new xpacs released between 2013-2026 - those are the only two that come to my immediate mind.

I’m not USian so take this with a grain of salt, but I’m pretty sure federal representatives can’t be recalled. They either serve their term, resign, die, or get kicked out.

If you open those links and scroll to the ‘Top Cast’ section, Michelle Yeoh is listed fourth on both pages just after Jeff Goldblum. I’ve got no dog in this fight - I’m just someone who’s seen both films - and I’ve gotta say that she did great in both of them.

Yep; they sure can! I’m pretty sure it’s just one hit with any bomb but I could be misremembering.

You can bomb the mummies to actually kill them - bombs also work well for quickly finding the exit to the next level by bombing clusters of rocks.

I usually just cheese the skull caverns with a bunch of staircases though. Feels a bit like cheating, but ConcernedApe put the assets in to be able to do it so I did! It’s great for very quickly getting to lvl 100 and then continuing on to farm iridium.

YSK that this varies significantly from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so stating this without identifying the specific area to which it pertains is misleading.

Pretty sure the far left doesn’t believe in currency or private ownership of goods at all. The far left are communists and anarchists who eschew capitalism entirely. The policies you’ve described are centre-left. The Overton Window in the US has shifted so far to the right that they don’t actually know what far left even means anymore.

Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.

Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.

To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.

I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.

I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.

My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.

Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.

I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.

Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument; not disagreeing with your overall point. If you seek to be persuasive, form your argument on points that can’t be so easily dismantled. Framing the argument from the perspective of patriarchal hegemony would be far more advantageous as it can’t then be weaponised by those who would seek to be bigots.

I’ve made no accusations towards you about being racist because I don’t know anything about you; I wouldn’t do that without evidence. It might be worth reflecting on why you felt I did so.

Rule of thumb, if someone critiques an identity that you are a part of and the critique doesnt apply to you then its probably not about you.

Try telling that to victims of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry. It’s not a particularly sound piece of advice.

The illusion… YOU’RE QUEER AS FUCK Do I want to be her, or be with her? …of free choice.

I mean, he’s a technocrat through and through. Always has been. Sometimes you need a stint of a technocrat to get into the nitty gritty.

Then again, he’s not my PM so I’m probably talking out my arse about the situation. I’m far less clued into domestic Canadian politics than the average Canadian.

From an Australian perspective: I agree. I was a foster care case manager for a fair while and whenever I was looking after kids in public I was hyperaware of being accused of something, but I never was. Not even weird looks or glances or anything like that. On the contrary, random women would often compliment me on being a good guardian for the kids because I’d love to muck around and play with them rather than just watch while they played.I slowly deconstructed that fear over time and am in a much better place with it now.

They ain’t monkeys.

Very well put.

The Paradox of Tolerance