It's not my government fucking me, at least not directly. It's the people who own a bunch of land they don't live on, who then demand money in perpetuity if anyone else wants to live there, who are fucking me. Granted the government defends them in doing so and could stop doing that, but blaming them directly would be like like blaming the soldiers for the atrocities their commanders order them to commit.
My disabled mother is constantly on the verge of homelessness floating from one shitty rented bedroom to another and barely eating on that $800/mo.
And it's highly uncertain whether Social Security will exist at all by the time I'm too old to work. My generation are probably all going to die in the street when we're old.
You must live a pretty cushy life if you think sex is the only motivator for men to do anything. I for one mostly do things so as to reduce the odds of dying in the street when I'm old.
Hello neighbor. I live in Ojai and am currently evacuated to Oxnard. News from my neighbors who stayed despite evacuation is that (contrary to woefully out-of-date online maps) the bulk of the fire has blown past Ojai now and is headed west toward Carpinteria and the mountains north of it.
Hope your home is safe, and my condolences to your coworkers that lost theirs. I don't know what I would do if it had hit mine.
As someone displaced from their home by the Thomas fire, I'm kinda pissed that the first discussion in this thread is wah-wah anti-AGW bullshit. To put it politely: shut the fuck up.
Good advice! But you can do better! Don't eat food at restaurants, you can cook food at home for a lot cheaper! And don't drink beer at a pub, you can drink beer at home for less than a dollar a bottle! Actually, why drink alcohol at all when you can get water for free? Just travel straight from work to home every day and have your break and water for dinner. But why have a home when you could just buy a cheap used van and get a gym membership? You can get a hot pot to cook ramen and eat vitamins and you should be fine! And after a year or two of that you should have enough money saved up that you can go buy some cheap property hundreds of miles away from civilization, get a few basic tools and some seeds and you can build your own log cabin and grow your own food! And don't worry about farming equipment, tens of thousands years ago people got by just by poking holes in the ground with a stick, so you can do the same! You'll never have to spend any money on anything ever again!
As the years go by and it continues to look like I will never in my entire life get to the point that I don't owe someone money just for the right to exist in a place, I've been feeling more and more guilty about not having done that my entire life. By now I can afford to buy a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, and probably afford to buy a manufactured home and have it installed out there, and then... go sit alone in my trailer in the middle of the desert, depressed and miserable for the rest of my life, until I decide to kill myself (in which case, may as well just do that now and get it over with). But I ought to, according to the advice on the internet; the reason I have problems is because I want to continue living where I was born and raised and always lived, and not leave behind all my family and friends and job and the woman who would be my wife if we could afford to live together (who wouldn't follow me there, I've asked). But according to everyone else, not doing that is the root of all my problems, and the fact that I could just go die alone in the desert but choose not to means those problems are all my own fault.
Nevertheless it is not the enclosure being referred to, it is the medium inside it. Magnetic storage media is either hard or floppy, and a 3.5" disk is not a hard disk.
I understand that that is what a large body of self-identified feminists stand for, and I don't dispute that the label "feminist" is perfectly applicable to them.
But there are also people who self-identify as feminists and speak and act misandrously. The above group of feminists, on a good day when they don't deny their existence at all, denounce them as "not real feminists", and it's good for them to denounce them and distance themselves from them, but they don't own the word "feminism". Those misandrists are claiming the label for themselves, too. So if we're to try to neutrally adjudicate which group, the egalitarian feminists or the misandrous feminists, has the objectively best claim to the label, we have to look at something other than just who uses it and whether they acknowledge others' use of it. Something like, say, the plain meaning of the word, as composed from its roots and affixes. By which standard, "feminism" means promotion of the feminine. Promoting the feminine up to the point of equality with the masculine can also be egalitarian. But promoting the feminine above the masculine is still promoting the feminine, and so still feminism. A bad, inegalitarian kind of feminism.
It sounded like you already understood that. I'm disappointed.
(The word "feminism" also makes a poor, needlessly exclusive name for a movement for gender equality generally, encompassing men's issues as well as women's. I know a lot of self-identified feminists are also concerned with men's issues, but how is such concern for men's issues literally "feminist"? It has nothing to do with anything feminine. It's gender egalitarian, but we have a term for that already -- that one, "gender egalitarian" -- and don't need to insist that all egalitarian concern for all genders must be subsumed within a label that's literally about just one of them. Feminists generally seem sensitive to issues of naming and language like this, so I'd expect more would understand this concern).
The blue set is masculism. Which can overlap with feminism. And both can overlap with egalitarianism.
Where each overlaps with egalitarianism, you have gendered rights movements. In the intersections. And those intersections intersect. You can (and should) champion rights for both.
Outside those intersections, all that's left is misogyny or misandry. The part of feminism that isn't egalitarianism is misandrous, like the part of masculism that isn't egalitarian is misogynous.
Man, people have a worse understanding of simple set theory than I even thought.
As other people have already said, this issue is a landmine of people having different ideas of what words mean. It makes me afraid to call myself anything, without my interlocutors first saying what they mean by the words, or simply "tabooing" the words and saying in long form what my position is.
I think in the end the morass of confusion comes down yet again to people not understanding basic set relations. I wish I could just shove a simple Euler diagram up every time the topic comes up to explain to people the relations between them. (Not you, who seem to already understand them; you just prompted me to think of this again).
Hell, I have a bit of web space, so here's a simple graphic to shove in people's faces for the future.
Egalitarianism promotes equality. Feminism most literally promotes the feminine. Feminism just to the point of equality, defending women's rights, is therefore also egalitarian. But not if it goes beyond that, which is not unheard-of; individual acts of misandry promoting women over men are still feminist, both by self-appelation of many of the people doing them, and just plain literal application of the word, even if feminism as a whole isn't like that. Promotion of the masculine would be masculism, not that anybody uses that term. Masculism just to the point of equality, defending men's rights, is therefore also egalitarian. But not, of course, if it goes beyond that, into misogyny.
The "floppy" in "floppy disk" always referred to the medium inside the cartridge, not the cartridge itself. Even in 3.5" disks, that medium was a flexible, floppy film. In contrast to the hard ceramic plates of hard disks. Putting a hard plastic shell around a floppy disk doesn't mark it a hard disk any more than putting a HDD in a plastic bag makes it floppy.
The rest of the world meant "thousand" by "kilo" thousands of years before there was ever such a thing as a byte. "Kilo"/"mega"/"giga"/etc for powers of 1024 instead of 1000 were always just shorthand.
The insides of them flopped. In contrast to the hard ceramic platter of a hard disk, which didn't flop. That's why people who call Zip disks a later kind of "floppy disk" are as wrong as people who called 3.5" floppies "hard disks"; Zips are small removable hard disks, and 3.5" floppies are still floppy where it matters despite the hard protective case.
I'm quite familiar with those kinds of buttons on a car radio (where you can only have one pushed in at a time, right? The preset station selectors?), as every car I've ever owned has had them, but I've never made the connection between those and the user interface "radio buttons" until now (which look nothing like the ones in in any car I've ever had, but function similarly, so I can see the naming connection now). I used to wonder why the user interface elements were named that. Thanks!
When the left talks about inequality, they specifically talk about inequality in outcomes, not inequality in opportunity. For them, it's axiomatic that an unequal outcome can only be due to an unequal opportunity and/or a discriminatory process.
Outcome is the product of opportunity and ability.
Given a normal (gaussian) distribution of ability, and a uniform (equal) distribution of opportunity, we would expect a normal distribution of outcomes (most people doing average, few people doing exceptionally well or poorly).
We tend to see a highly abnormal distribution of outcomes (worse outcomes are way more common than better ones), which means either ability is not normally distributed, or opportunity is not uniformly distributed.
Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Therefore we can conclude that opportunity is not uniformly distributed.
TL;DR: Statistically abnormal inequality of outcome is evidence of inequality of opportunity.
Yeah, that's the dead giveaway isn't it. Obviously the original figure was 9000 psi and someone tried to "helpfully" convert it into SI units but failed their most basic unit analysis, turning force into mass and, as an AC points out above, square inches into centimeters, ultimately converting a measurement of pressure into a measurement of linear density. What?
The hell kind of weird bastardized units are these writers using? Kilograms are mass. Newtons are force. Do you mean 9.8N, which is about the force of 1kg under 1g (g-force, not grams) of acceleration?
The term movie is a shortened form of moving picture. [...] the term cinema originates in French.
And is, interestingly, short for "cinematograph", which means... "moving picture". "Movie" is about the most direct and literal French-to-English translation of "cinema" that you can do.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not my government fucking me, at least not directly. It's the people who own a bunch of land they don't live on, who then demand money in perpetuity if anyone else wants to live there, who are fucking me. Granted the government defends them in doing so and could stop doing that, but blaming them directly would be like like blaming the soldiers for the atrocities their commanders order them to commit.
The opulence of the tiny 1br trailer I already live in and work out of?
My disabled mother is constantly on the verge of homelessness floating from one shitty rented bedroom to another and barely eating on that $800/mo.
And it's highly uncertain whether Social Security will exist at all by the time I'm too old to work. My generation are probably all going to die in the street when we're old.
You must live a pretty cushy life if you think sex is the only motivator for men to do anything. I for one mostly do things so as to reduce the odds of dying in the street when I'm old.
Imagine if the day comes when you can insta-generate porn featuring a hotter version of yourself fucking your favorite pornstar.
Hello neighbor. I live in Ojai and am currently evacuated to Oxnard. News from my neighbors who stayed despite evacuation is that (contrary to woefully out-of-date online maps) the bulk of the fire has blown past Ojai now and is headed west toward Carpinteria and the mountains north of it.
Hope your home is safe, and my condolences to your coworkers that lost theirs. I don't know what I would do if it had hit mine.
As someone displaced from their home by the Thomas fire, I'm kinda pissed that the first discussion in this thread is wah-wah anti-AGW bullshit. To put it politely: shut the fuck up.
Good advice! But you can do better! Don't eat food at restaurants, you can cook food at home for a lot cheaper! And don't drink beer at a pub, you can drink beer at home for less than a dollar a bottle! Actually, why drink alcohol at all when you can get water for free? Just travel straight from work to home every day and have your break and water for dinner. But why have a home when you could just buy a cheap used van and get a gym membership? You can get a hot pot to cook ramen and eat vitamins and you should be fine! And after a year or two of that you should have enough money saved up that you can go buy some cheap property hundreds of miles away from civilization, get a few basic tools and some seeds and you can build your own log cabin and grow your own food! And don't worry about farming equipment, tens of thousands years ago people got by just by poking holes in the ground with a stick, so you can do the same! You'll never have to spend any money on anything ever again!
As the years go by and it continues to look like I will never in my entire life get to the point that I don't owe someone money just for the right to exist in a place, I've been feeling more and more guilty about not having done that my entire life. By now I can afford to buy a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, and probably afford to buy a manufactured home and have it installed out there, and then... go sit alone in my trailer in the middle of the desert, depressed and miserable for the rest of my life, until I decide to kill myself (in which case, may as well just do that now and get it over with). But I ought to, according to the advice on the internet; the reason I have problems is because I want to continue living where I was born and raised and always lived, and not leave behind all my family and friends and job and the woman who would be my wife if we could afford to live together (who wouldn't follow me there, I've asked). But according to everyone else, not doing that is the root of all my problems, and the fact that I could just go die alone in the desert but choose not to means those problems are all my own fault.
Nevertheless it is not the enclosure being referred to, it is the medium inside it. Magnetic storage media is either hard or floppy, and a 3.5" disk is not a hard disk.
"Misogyny" is written in the middle of the part of the blue set that doesn't intersect anything else, denoting just that part.
"Masculism" is written on the border of the blue set, denoting the whole thing, including the parts that intersect other sets.
How would you label it more clearly?
I understand that that is what a large body of self-identified feminists stand for, and I don't dispute that the label "feminist" is perfectly applicable to them.
But there are also people who self-identify as feminists and speak and act misandrously. The above group of feminists, on a good day when they don't deny their existence at all, denounce them as "not real feminists", and it's good for them to denounce them and distance themselves from them, but they don't own the word "feminism". Those misandrists are claiming the label for themselves, too. So if we're to try to neutrally adjudicate which group, the egalitarian feminists or the misandrous feminists, has the objectively best claim to the label, we have to look at something other than just who uses it and whether they acknowledge others' use of it. Something like, say, the plain meaning of the word, as composed from its roots and affixes. By which standard, "feminism" means promotion of the feminine. Promoting the feminine up to the point of equality with the masculine can also be egalitarian. But promoting the feminine above the masculine is still promoting the feminine, and so still feminism. A bad, inegalitarian kind of feminism.
It sounded like you already understood that. I'm disappointed.
(The word "feminism" also makes a poor, needlessly exclusive name for a movement for gender equality generally, encompassing men's issues as well as women's. I know a lot of self-identified feminists are also concerned with men's issues, but how is such concern for men's issues literally "feminist"? It has nothing to do with anything feminine. It's gender egalitarian, but we have a term for that already -- that one, "gender egalitarian" -- and don't need to insist that all egalitarian concern for all genders must be subsumed within a label that's literally about just one of them. Feminists generally seem sensitive to issues of naming and language like this, so I'd expect more would understand this concern).
The blue set is masculism. Which can overlap with feminism. And both can overlap with egalitarianism.
Where each overlaps with egalitarianism, you have gendered rights movements. In the intersections. And those intersections intersect. You can (and should) champion rights for both.
Outside those intersections, all that's left is misogyny or misandry. The part of feminism that isn't egalitarianism is misandrous, like the part of masculism that isn't egalitarian is misogynous.
Man, people have a worse understanding of simple set theory than I even thought.
As other people have already said, this issue is a landmine of people having different ideas of what words mean. It makes me afraid to call myself anything, without my interlocutors first saying what they mean by the words, or simply "tabooing" the words and saying in long form what my position is.
I think in the end the morass of confusion comes down yet again to people not understanding basic set relations. I wish I could just shove a simple Euler diagram up every time the topic comes up to explain to people the relations between them. (Not you, who seem to already understand them; you just prompted me to think of this again).
Hell, I have a bit of web space, so here's a simple graphic to shove in people's faces for the future.
Egalitarianism promotes equality. Feminism most literally promotes the feminine. Feminism just to the point of equality, defending women's rights, is therefore also egalitarian. But not if it goes beyond that, which is not unheard-of; individual acts of misandry promoting women over men are still feminist, both by self-appelation of many of the people doing them, and just plain literal application of the word, even if feminism as a whole isn't like that. Promotion of the masculine would be masculism, not that anybody uses that term. Masculism just to the point of equality, defending men's rights, is therefore also egalitarian. But not, of course, if it goes beyond that, into misogyny.
Simple set theory here, people.
The "floppy" in "floppy disk" always referred to the medium inside the cartridge, not the cartridge itself. Even in 3.5" disks, that medium was a flexible, floppy film. In contrast to the hard ceramic plates of hard disks. Putting a hard plastic shell around a floppy disk doesn't mark it a hard disk any more than putting a HDD in a plastic bag makes it floppy.
The rest of the world meant "thousand" by "kilo" thousands of years before there was ever such a thing as a byte. "Kilo"/"mega"/"giga"/etc for powers of 1024 instead of 1000 were always just shorthand.
I got a lawn dart through my foot once.
It was surprisingly not awful. Didn't even notice it had gone through until my friend panicked and pointed.
Then it was awful.
The insides of them flopped. In contrast to the hard ceramic platter of a hard disk, which didn't flop. That's why people who call Zip disks a later kind of "floppy disk" are as wrong as people who called 3.5" floppies "hard disks"; Zips are small removable hard disks, and 3.5" floppies are still floppy where it matters despite the hard protective case.
I'm quite familiar with those kinds of buttons on a car radio (where you can only have one pushed in at a time, right? The preset station selectors?), as every car I've ever owned has had them, but I've never made the connection between those and the user interface "radio buttons" until now (which look nothing like the ones in in any car I've ever had, but function similarly, so I can see the naming connection now). I used to wonder why the user interface elements were named that. Thanks!
"It's like a park, but smaller and just for you, you own it as part of your house."
"Own?"
When the left talks about inequality, they specifically talk about inequality in outcomes, not inequality in opportunity. For them, it's axiomatic that an unequal outcome can only be due to an unequal opportunity and/or a discriminatory process.
Outcome is the product of opportunity and ability.
Given a normal (gaussian) distribution of ability, and a uniform (equal) distribution of opportunity, we would expect a normal distribution of outcomes (most people doing average, few people doing exceptionally well or poorly).
We tend to see a highly abnormal distribution of outcomes (worse outcomes are way more common than better ones), which means either ability is not normally distributed, or opportunity is not uniformly distributed.
Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Therefore we can conclude that opportunity is not uniformly distributed.
TL;DR: Statistically abnormal inequality of outcome is evidence of inequality of opportunity.
Yeah, that's the dead giveaway isn't it. Obviously the original figure was 9000 psi and someone tried to "helpfully" convert it into SI units but failed their most basic unit analysis, turning force into mass and, as an AC points out above, square inches into centimeters, ultimately converting a measurement of pressure into a measurement of linear density. What?
The hell kind of weird bastardized units are these writers using? Kilograms are mass. Newtons are force. Do you mean 9.8N, which is about the force of 1kg under 1g (g-force, not grams) of acceleration?
Contradiction much? Millennials as a generation as flat fucking broke.
Pretty sure the paneng gai (a Thai chicken curry) I'm cooking right now didn't come from Britain.
The term movie is a shortened form of moving picture. [...] the term cinema originates in French.
And is, interestingly, short for "cinematograph", which means... "moving picture". "Movie" is about the most direct and literal French-to-English translation of "cinema" that you can do.