So, you’re asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?

Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/05/07/target-self-checkout-thief-aziza-graves-convicted/73599144007/

(edit: shortened url.)

Is there a particilar part of a lecture about chimpanzee mating habits that you think especially buttress sexism? If not, just referring to a whole video as a reference is just a gish galllp through citation.

Except that it ISNT self-evident. There are plenty of mammals with no apparent bias as to which sex is more prone to violence, more if you exclude the minority of mammals where only one sex has a natural weapon.

You might have a slightly better case if we were just talking primates. But not by a lot.

As a seperate top-level answer: no, would not pursue a romantic relationship with a woman who repeats sexist assertions about men. Because i am both a man and a feminist, and my several decades of happy married life have taught me that compatability of strongly held beliefs is a key to romantic happiness.

I would also not encourage the young men and women i know to either espouse sexist positoons or pursue potential partners who hold such beliefs. And i would probably also ramble for a bit about how all labels are imperfect and you should not necessarily dismiss someone just becsuse of a label.

If you want to date someone who describes themselves as a “radical feminist”, a date might be a good way to discern if they are an “all men are evil” feminist or a “men are awesome and also victims of the patriarchy” feminist.

Feminists dont say things like “all men are potential rapists”, save for those who also say “all women are potential rapists.”.

An actual (traditional) feminist would say something like “society encourages rapy behavior from men”, which is functionally the same but rhetorically a far different animal. Women and men who say that men are categoryly dangerous are also implicitly telling boys that they are bad just because they are boys.

Sexist statements about how women are good and men are bad isnt feminism, it’s just sexism in disguise.

While dramatic things like making the senate votes proportional or abolishing the electoral college might require a constitutional amendment, the text is silent on plurality vs RCW or what have you.

Congress could mandate a switch with a simple law, and point to their power to ensure democracy, same as the post bush v gore laws that mandated electronic voting machines.

It’s not really “established” becaue there isnt any formal body declaring what names different voting systems have.

Are you unclear about what recognition other demcracies give to parties, how there is no prize for 2nd place in America, or why that lack of such a prize gives rise to a two-party system?

The elecrelically semi-literate side, obviously.

1: FPTP is a terrible term as its literally not an accurate way to describe a “single-vote plurality wins” systrm like most of the USA has. When you use the phrase to someone who doesn’t already agree that there are better ways its just inaccurate enough to sabatoge any point you might make.

2: the UK and other parliamentary systems have embedded rewards just for being “a party”. There are only two parties in the USA becaue parties on their own have institutional recognition, and in our politocal contests there is no prize for second place.

I mean, isn’t it a usb_c cable that the manufavtuer claims can handle 10 amps of current at once? (which i think may be on the low side)

It’s not a question of wanting competition or not. Political parties by nature will attempt to get as strong a coalition as they can, until they reach a size large enough that bisecting the party still leaves one half in power and some internal disagreememt triggers the split.

Fringe parties in America, like the Green and Libertarian parties, arent oppressed by some conspiracy between Rs and Ds. Rather, they are left at the fringe because they do not have any power worth pledging to, for the simple fact that in the american single-rep plurality-wins system tbere is no prize for second place.

Voters who like the current office holder work to keep them in power and those who do not work with the opposition to remove the incumbent from power. Anyone not joining one of these sides serves only as a tool for one side against the other, since anything but a vote for the runner up is an effective endorsrment of the eventual winner.

The American system is imperfect and could be a lot better, but fringe parties and vanity campaigns do nothing to actually encourage systemic change.

“they” has always been proper, it just used to be incorrectly taught agaist like split infinitives and ending a sentence with a proposition.

Wikipedia dates its first usge as over 500 years ago, and complaints less than 300.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Does this imply that the rapture won’t happen on any day any man or angel predicted it, and suggest that these crackpots are either delivering a “no rapture today” message from the Lord Almighty or else embarrassing Her into putting it off?

Neither the image posted nor “dismantling the gender binary” are feminist. And while the latter seems a worthwhile cause that deserved its own name and slogans, the former is a piece of art which echos hateful stereotypes about men and thus causes some.very real revulsion from viewers outraged by those stereotypes.

Maybe on your half. Like I said, I’m only here for grammar, rhetoric, and understanding.

I dont want to argue about whether or not the pain of children who happen to resemble the elite of the patriarchy is less urgent than the pain of children who do not. Both sides of that fight are very passionate and have good-sounding arguments and in other contexts I might argue either side.

Right now, here, in this thread, I just want to stand up for language and rhetoric and the need to be mindful that unspoken messages can still be heard and cause harm.

There are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.

Plenty of “white men” are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a “white man” is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.

(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva’s thesis, in which case it would merely be “racially prejudical.”.)

(edit: wrote “autistic” twice and said sex when I meant gender.)

The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I’m just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.

Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.

English is an organic language and can shift subtly with each speaker,. Especially if prior usage makes communication more difficult.

NOT having distinct terms for sex and gender makes communication and understanding harder. If you have alternate terms you think are better I’d love to hear them., but if all you have is an insistence that “incorrect English” is a thing I’ll just have to wish you a good day.

Sarcasm and hyperbole are two of my favorite things, but Poe’s ls is a real thing.

Without a clear indicator of intent, it’s impossible to distinguish snark from extremism

Fwiw, I realized years ago that the only people whose opinion of my parenting actually matter are the adults my descendents will grow up to be.