I'm going to stand in awe at your own lack of self-awareness. Motherjones is a lefty rag. GooTube is overtaken by lefty social justice warriors. The attack on neo-Nazis, while ignoring even worse communism, shows what the true agenda is: neo-Nazis first, then the "alt-right", then the "alt-light", etc.
It wasn't even subtle. "A UK anti-refugee protest and speech, which includes a participant holding a flag from National Action, a neo-Nazi group the UK government banned as a terrorist organization last year. Other videos also include National Action banners."
Oh, so there was an anti-immigration speech, and one participant held an outlawed flag. Therefore, the entire speech must be removed.
Communism is shit. It destroys wealth and people. Yes, there are rich capitalists. Yes, there is income inequality. And ordinary people are STILL better off than they ever were under communism. How many more millions do you want to kill before you decide the experiment is a failure?
You want a Calexit? Ok, but take all the Democrat refugees that have been fleeing from the state and taking their shitty policies with them that caused them to flee in the first place. Then you can officially become annexed by Mexico.
As a left winger I don't find it hard to point out why their beliefs are objectively wrong (I'll spare everyone that in this thread) but looking down on them or worse threatening violence doesn't help. Yes, right wingers are wrong. As the saying goes reality as a well known liberal bias.
Where in the study excerpt have you - or Damore, for that matter - found the word "conservative"? This already shows that both of you either have pulled the statement out of your arses or are unable to work with primary sources.
First, the word "conservative" was in the article James linked to. Hence he did not "pull it out of his ass", as that would imply he made it up. So you were too sloppy to even check for links, and are just moving the goal posts.
Second, the left/right divide is generally considered along the liberal/conservative divide. This is true even in European countries, though Europe is generally as a whole more liberal on issues.
Third, the article contained links to other studies, including one involving American politics.
What part of "less robust and replicable" do you not understand?
Yes, and? "Less" is not the opposite of "valid". That's why the article James linked to said, "The second-best predictor was the personality trait "conscientiousness"--organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Those high in conscientiousness were likely to vote for the conservative party. ". And James summarized this as, "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness".
And, most importantly, you both don't understand the difference between equivalence and entailment, which is, for a software developer, very embarassing.
What's embarrassing is your shifting of the goalposts after you made an ass out of yourself. You act like and defend the baying mob that want to burn down a strawman instead of having scientific discussion, while implementing illegal and discriminatory policies not based in any science.
Poland is nothing like the USA. It is a piss poor wannabe catholic theocracy that defines itself by the hate it has for its neighbours.
Funny, because that's how many liberals would describe conservative America, substituting Christian for Catholic, along with a hate for Mexico. Alternatively, Poland wants to conserve its nation amid the collective suicide of Western Europe.
This is very sloppy of you because you haven't read the actual excerpt, just a sensationalised headline.
Pardon me? YOU sloppily claim James pulled a statement out of his ass, when it's directly linked in his paper. Furthermore, I quoted from an article, not a headline.
The " Conscientiousness was also a valid predictor, although its effect was less robust and replicable" line is difficult to miss.
What part of "valid predictor" do you not understand? It correlates exactly with what James said, "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness".
Moreover, this is an European study, the line between left and right wing are completely different here.
Now you are moving the goalposts. You originally claimed he pulled it out of his ass, even though it was clearly sourced. Now you want to argue about how valid a European study is to the United States, though you haven't demonstrated that the liberal/conservative divide cannot be relatively mapped over. Furthermore, we have countries like Poland, which is currently demonstrating a strong parallel to conservatism in the United States.
Finally, going with the Big Five personality traits, people higher in conscientiousness are more often than not better educated. But a different study shows that conservative people are generally less educated.
Again, having moved the goalposts, you are arguing competing science. There's nothing wrong with scientific debate, but instead of allowing a serious discussion, one side howled like a baying mob and made a strawman of what James had said so they could burn it down.
All of it just shows that it was really an uninformed rant which only appeared well researched at a shallow glance. That you are willing to defend it, tells a lot about yourself, none of it flattering.
Well, nice to know you fail at reading comprehension.
You continue to project your own failings on to me and James Damore, in typical social "justice" idiot fashion.
Yes, yes he [the researcher] did [say he misunderstood the science].
No, he did not. I did what you failed to do, which is quote from your link exactly what the researcher said. James made a general statement based on the paper, and the researcher agreed his general claim was correct. He did NOT say James "misunderstood the science".
But he never said it was genetic, and neither did any of the other studies Damore "cited", and yet that's the conclusion that Damore drew.
"Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences."
And that's why he was fired.
He was fired for wrongthink rooted in science, while Google illegally allows open prejudice against white males, both in culture and policy, without any science to back it up.,
"No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office"
It's arguable whether what transpired at Google applies. I think a reasonable case can be made that Google allowed both a de-facto and a written policy of liberal political action within the company and punished those who expressed the opposite political opinion.
I linked to news articles, which put material in context. So no, that's not my link. Thanks for playing though, kid.
Then you must be talking about the plos study, which wasn't "my" link. I copied it straight out of the article you linked, social "justice" idiot.
If he read a study but did not understand it, he was not informed. The authors of several studies he cited said he did not understand them. QED.
That's your grossly inaccurate summarization. The article admits his general claim is correct. The researcher does NOT say he misunderstood the science. On the contrary, he confirms his understanding, but shrugs his shoulders about its application at Google:
"On average--and I emphasize that, on average-men are more interested in thing-oriented occupations and fields, and that difference is actually quite large," says Richard Lippa, a psychologist at Cal State Fullerton and another of the researchers who Damore cites.
But trying to use that data to explain gender disparities in the workplace is irrelevant at best. "I would assume that women in technical positions at Google are more thing-oriented than the average woman," Lippa says. "But then an interesting question is, are they more thing-oriented than the average male Google employee? I don't know the answer to that."
Then please show me the source of Damore's conviction that conservatives somehow "tend to be higher in conscientiousness". If that is not an arsepull, then what is?
Why would you question a claim that you could very well look up for yourself? Not very conscientiousness of you.
The reference for his claim, which cites a study and says:
"The best predictor of party preference wasn't any of the socio-demographic characteristics--it was the personality trait "openness," which in the big five model means curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. Openness was tightly linked with voting for the liberal party. The second-best predictor was the personality trait "conscientiousness"--organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Those high in conscientiousness were likely to vote for the conservative party."
No, it was YOUR link. I just threw it back in your face. Apparently, as a social "justice" idiot you are too stupid to read the links you post, assuming that an article corrected the wrongthink without any nuance.
doesn't contradict what I said
It directly contradicted your original claim: "uninformed rant". Hence, all you're doing now is moving the goalposts.
about what the authors of some of "his" "citations" (which don't support his argument) straight out stating that he didn't understand what he read
No, the article explicitly says his assertions are GENERALLY RIGHT. All they do is try to downplay their results and application to the workplace.
Once again, in addition to the other various logical fallacies you are committing, you are moving the goalposts.
Hilarious, hypocrite. That's exactly what YOU did.
Says the guy whose first links says, "It wasn't a screed or a rant". Nice job, social "justice" idiot, you linked to a source that directly contradicts your original statement.
Actually, he does. From your link: "That said, Damore's assertion that men and women think different is actually pretty uncontroversial"
The article just tries to downplay it. And, oh look, James is right again!
"In general, he notes, women prefer to work with people and men prefer to work with things--the implication being that Google is a more thing-oriented workplace, so it just makes sense that fewer women would want to work there. Again, the central assertion here is fairly uncontroversial."
Their basic counter-argument is to say that these are just averages, and that individuals vary within the population. Which is perfectly true, BUT YOU ARE LOOKING AT AVERAGES when you look at employee demographics.
Even further, something like a 10% biological difference can yield extreme differences on the tail end of distributions, and we know that Google hires the best, that is, from the tail end of distributions.
Funny how Google mandates discriminatory hiring practices without any science to back it up, and fires the guy who points out science that explains differences in representation.
Obama and how he "walked in thin ice" about racism during his Presidency
Puh-lease. He started out early by wading into a local police issue. After some backlash and a "beer summit" that was supposed to be a "teachable moment" that went nowhere, did Obama learn his lesson? No, he continued to offer hot takes on race issues, ultimately throwing the police under the bus time and time again, until we were left with murdered cops across the nation and race relations WORSE than they had been in a long time, 8 years after a black President.
If Obama was like Trump, he would have never been elected.
Obama helped set the stage for Trump. A President who refused to say "radical Islam", too willing to put his country second, and too embedded into a "progressive" political landscape run amok.
You're a liar, because his "uninformed rant" was sourced. The true ranters are the social justice idiots that insist on "diversity" programs that discriminate based on sex and race.
they will roll out the HR termination paperwork documenting how he was abusing other employees because they weren't white
Ha. All he did was state his opinion that Google's policies and culture were discriminatory. For that, HE was abused by the social "justice" idiots that rule the roost at Google, like this asshole:
From: Alex Hidalgo <ahidalgo@google.com> Subject: You are a terrible person Date: Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:38 PM To: James Damore <damore@google.com>
Feel free to pass this along to HR. Keep them in the loop for all I care. May as well do it early.
You're a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.
This required sufficient internal response that the CEO had to cut short a family vacation in order to handle it. In general, a CEO of that size company does not expect to personally manage damage from an engineering hire unless things are seriously wrong. IMO that alone was sufficient reason for termination.
You don't fire an employee speaking out because your company has turned into a hotbed of discrimination against white males. Google violated the law by discriminating not only against conservative opinion within the company, but also via their discrimination in hiring practices. You should try reading the complaint before spouting off: https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Peter Strzok, key investigator in Clinton and Trump investigations: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40"
If the OP wanted to make a point about "being free to act as you choose, except to impose yourself on others" then that's what they would have said, and they didn't. Don't put your words in someone else's mouth.
Part of arguing honestly and/or not being an autist is reading the intent based on context instead of trying to win based on technicalities.
You're engaging in dishonest sophistry. You know what the point is: You are free to do as you please, except to impose yourself on others. It's the Orwellian authoritarians that try to sell government regulation against personal choice as freedom.
Kinda weird how the only actual quoted parts from the book are about something she did when she was seven years old.
Oh, would you prefer the quotes from when she was older?
"As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a "motorcycle chick." Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just "relax on me." Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying."
"I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out."
Hell, even smug douche Ben Shapiro couldn't stand to be associated with them any more and he was a founder.
Funny how dishonest you are when you act as truth-bringer. Your link says nothing about Shapiro's feelings. All it said was that he resigned and a bunch of other writers were let go.
This is the politically correct head-in-sand approach to Islamic terrorism. The terror is Islamic. It is inspired by Islamic scriptures, preachers, history, and followers. You can't address a problem if you don't identify the root causes.
How the "peaceful" Muslims respond to the beating black heart within Islam is up to them. But pretending that it isn't there isn't going to solve the problem.
The problem with fusion is that it generates relativistic neutrons that displace atoms in metals and cause them to become brittle. This not only weakens the materials but makes some critical materials like the superconducting magnets rapidly turn into scrap.
Not just scrap, nuclear waste. You know, the thing fusion was supposed to avoid in comparison to fission. It's yet another problem that has not been solved to make fusion viable.
Slashdot Mirror
I read your post, every shitty word. You have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I'm going to stand in awe at your own lack of self-awareness. Motherjones is a lefty rag. GooTube is overtaken by lefty social justice warriors. The attack on neo-Nazis, while ignoring even worse communism, shows what the true agenda is: neo-Nazis first, then the "alt-right", then the "alt-light", etc.
It wasn't even subtle. "A UK anti-refugee protest and speech, which includes a participant holding a flag from National Action, a neo-Nazi group the UK government banned as a terrorist organization last year. Other videos also include National Action banners."
Oh, so there was an anti-immigration speech, and one participant held an outlawed flag. Therefore, the entire speech must be removed.
Communism is shit. It destroys wealth and people. Yes, there are rich capitalists. Yes, there is income inequality. And ordinary people are STILL better off than they ever were under communism. How many more millions do you want to kill before you decide the experiment is a failure?
That's the benefit of a one-party system that gives no fucks about citizen complaints.
You want a Calexit? Ok, but take all the Democrat refugees that have been fleeing from the state and taking their shitty policies with them that caused them to flee in the first place. Then you can officially become annexed by Mexico.
As a left winger I don't find it hard to point out why their beliefs are objectively wrong (I'll spare everyone that in this thread) but looking down on them or worse threatening violence doesn't help. Yes, right wingers are wrong. As the saying goes reality as a well known liberal bias.
How good do your farts smell?
Where in the study excerpt have you - or Damore, for that matter - found the word "conservative"? This already shows that both of you either have pulled the statement out of your arses or are unable to work with primary sources.
First, the word "conservative" was in the article James linked to. Hence he did not "pull it out of his ass", as that would imply he made it up. So you were too sloppy to even check for links, and are just moving the goal posts.
Second, the left/right divide is generally considered along the liberal/conservative divide. This is true even in European countries, though Europe is generally as a whole more liberal on issues.
Third, the article contained links to other studies, including one involving American politics.
What part of "less robust and replicable" do you not understand?
Yes, and? "Less" is not the opposite of "valid". That's why the article James linked to said, "The second-best predictor was the personality trait "conscientiousness"--organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Those high in conscientiousness were likely to vote for the conservative party. ". And James summarized this as, "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness".
And, most importantly, you both don't understand the difference between equivalence and entailment, which is, for a software developer, very embarassing.
What's embarrassing is your shifting of the goalposts after you made an ass out of yourself. You act like and defend the baying mob that want to burn down a strawman instead of having scientific discussion, while implementing illegal and discriminatory policies not based in any science.
Poland is nothing like the USA. It is a piss poor wannabe catholic theocracy that defines itself by the hate it has for its neighbours.
Funny, because that's how many liberals would describe conservative America, substituting Christian for Catholic, along with a hate for Mexico. Alternatively, Poland wants to conserve its nation amid the collective suicide of Western Europe.
This is very sloppy of you because you haven't read the actual excerpt, just a sensationalised headline.
Pardon me? YOU sloppily claim James pulled a statement out of his ass, when it's directly linked in his paper. Furthermore, I quoted from an article, not a headline.
The " Conscientiousness was also a valid predictor, although its effect was less robust and replicable" line is difficult to miss.
What part of "valid predictor" do you not understand? It correlates exactly with what James said, "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness".
Moreover, this is an European study, the line between left and right wing are completely different here.
Now you are moving the goalposts. You originally claimed he pulled it out of his ass, even though it was clearly sourced. Now you want to argue about how valid a European study is to the United States, though you haven't demonstrated that the liberal/conservative divide cannot be relatively mapped over. Furthermore, we have countries like Poland, which is currently demonstrating a strong parallel to conservatism in the United States.
Finally, going with the Big Five personality traits, people higher in conscientiousness are more often than not better educated. But a different study shows that conservative people are generally less educated.
Again, having moved the goalposts, you are arguing competing science. There's nothing wrong with scientific debate, but instead of allowing a serious discussion, one side howled like a baying mob and made a strawman of what James had said so they could burn it down.
All of it just shows that it was really an uninformed rant which only appeared well researched at a shallow glance. That you are willing to defend it, tells a lot about yourself, none of it flattering.
Right back at you.
Well, nice to know you fail at reading comprehension.
You continue to project your own failings on to me and James Damore, in typical social "justice" idiot fashion.
Yes, yes he [the researcher] did [say he misunderstood the science].
No, he did not. I did what you failed to do, which is quote from your link exactly what the researcher said. James made a general statement based on the paper, and the researcher agreed his general claim was correct. He did NOT say James "misunderstood the science".
But he never said it was genetic, and neither did any of the other studies Damore "cited", and yet that's the conclusion that Damore drew.
Bullshit. From the abstract:
"Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences."
And that's why he was fired.
He was fired for wrongthink rooted in science, while Google illegally allows open prejudice against white males, both in culture and policy, without any science to back it up.,
Political affiliation is not simply opinions spouted (whether conservative or liberal or centrist) but actual alignment with a party.
That's your own made up interpretation of "engaging or participating in politics":
https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
"No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office"
It's arguable whether what transpired at Google applies. I think a reasonable case can be made that Google allowed both a de-facto and a written policy of liberal political action within the company and punished those who expressed the opposite political opinion.
I linked to news articles, which put material in context. So no, that's not my link. Thanks for playing though, kid.
Then you must be talking about the plos study, which wasn't "my" link. I copied it straight out of the article you linked, social "justice" idiot.
If he read a study but did not understand it, he was not informed. The authors of several studies he cited said he did not understand them. QED.
That's your grossly inaccurate summarization. The article admits his general claim is correct. The researcher does NOT say he misunderstood the science. On the contrary, he confirms his understanding, but shrugs his shoulders about its application at Google:
"On average--and I emphasize that, on average-men are more interested in thing-oriented occupations and fields, and that difference is actually quite large," says Richard Lippa, a psychologist at Cal State Fullerton and another of the researchers who Damore cites.
But trying to use that data to explain gender disparities in the workplace is irrelevant at best. "I would assume that women in technical positions at Google are more thing-oriented than the average woman," Lippa says. "But then an interesting question is, are they more thing-oriented than the average male Google employee? I don't know the answer to that."
ORLY?
RLY
Then please show me the source of Damore's conviction that conservatives somehow "tend to be higher in conscientiousness". If that is not an arsepull, then what is?
Why would you question a claim that you could very well look up for yourself? Not very conscientiousness of you.
The reference for his claim, which cites a study and says:
"The best predictor of party preference wasn't any of the socio-demographic characteristics--it was the personality trait "openness," which in the big five model means curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. Openness was tightly linked with voting for the liberal party. The second-best predictor was the personality trait "conscientiousness"--organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Those high in conscientiousness were likely to vote for the conservative party."
Your link
No, it was YOUR link. I just threw it back in your face. Apparently, as a social "justice" idiot you are too stupid to read the links you post, assuming that an article corrected the wrongthink without any nuance.
doesn't contradict what I said
It directly contradicted your original claim: "uninformed rant". Hence, all you're doing now is moving the goalposts.
about what the authors of some of "his" "citations" (which don't support his argument) straight out stating that he didn't understand what he read
No, the article explicitly says his assertions are GENERALLY RIGHT. All they do is try to downplay their results and application to the workplace.
Once again, in addition to the other various logical fallacies you are committing, you are moving the goalposts.
Hilarious, hypocrite. That's exactly what YOU did.
You're an idiot
Says the guy whose first links says, "It wasn't a screed or a rant". Nice job, social "justice" idiot, you linked to a source that directly contradicts your original statement.
did not understand the papers he was citing
Actually, he does. From your link: "That said, Damore's assertion that men and women think different is actually pretty uncontroversial"
The article just tries to downplay it. And, oh look, James is right again!
"In general, he notes, women prefer to work with people and men prefer to work with things--the implication being that Google is a more thing-oriented workplace, so it just makes sense that fewer women would want to work there. Again, the central assertion here is fairly uncontroversial."
Their basic counter-argument is to say that these are just averages, and that individuals vary within the population. Which is perfectly true, BUT YOU ARE LOOKING AT AVERAGES when you look at employee demographics.
Even further, something like a 10% biological difference can yield extreme differences on the tail end of distributions, and we know that Google hires the best, that is, from the tail end of distributions.
Funny how Google mandates discriminatory hiring practices without any science to back it up, and fires the guy who points out science that explains differences in representation.
Obama and how he "walked in thin ice" about racism during his Presidency
Puh-lease. He started out early by wading into a local police issue. After some backlash and a "beer summit" that was supposed to be a "teachable moment" that went nowhere, did Obama learn his lesson? No, he continued to offer hot takes on race issues, ultimately throwing the police under the bus time and time again, until we were left with murdered cops across the nation and race relations WORSE than they had been in a long time, 8 years after a black President.
If Obama was like Trump, he would have never been elected.
Obama helped set the stage for Trump. A President who refused to say "radical Islam", too willing to put his country second, and too embedded into a "progressive" political landscape run amok.
You're a liar, because his "uninformed rant" was sourced. The true ranters are the social justice idiots that insist on "diversity" programs that discriminate based on sex and race.
they will roll out the HR termination paperwork documenting how he was abusing other employees because they weren't white
Ha. All he did was state his opinion that Google's policies and culture were discriminatory. For that, HE was abused by the social "justice" idiots that rule the roost at Google, like this asshole:
From: Alex Hidalgo <ahidalgo@google.com>
Subject: You are a terrible person
Date: Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:38 PM
To: James Damore <damore@google.com>
Feel free to pass this along to HR. Keep them in the loop for all I care. May as well do it early.
You're a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.
-Alex
https://www.scribd.com/documen...
This required sufficient internal response that the CEO had to cut short a family vacation in order to handle it. In general, a CEO of that size company does not expect to personally manage damage from an engineering hire unless things are seriously wrong. IMO that alone was sufficient reason for termination.
You don't fire an employee speaking out because your company has turned into a hotbed of discrimination against white males. Google violated the law by discriminating not only against conservative opinion within the company, but also via their discrimination in hiring practices. You should try reading the complaint before spouting off: https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Damore's a turkey.
You're a social "justice" idiot.
Please provide a citation.
Peter Strzok, key investigator in Clinton and Trump investigations: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40"
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
The REAL Russian collusion: Bribery for US uranium: http://www.newsweek.com/how-ro...
If the OP wanted to make a point about "being free to act as you choose, except to impose yourself on others" then that's what they would have said, and they didn't. Don't put your words in someone else's mouth.
Part of arguing honestly and/or not being an autist is reading the intent based on context instead of trying to win based on technicalities.
You're engaging in dishonest sophistry. You know what the point is: You are free to do as you please, except to impose yourself on others. It's the Orwellian authoritarians that try to sell government regulation against personal choice as freedom.
Kinda weird how the only actual quoted parts from the book are about something she did when she was seven years old.
Oh, would you prefer the quotes from when she was older?
"As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a "motorcycle chick." Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just "relax on me." Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying."
"I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out."
Hell, even smug douche Ben Shapiro couldn't stand to be associated with them any more and he was a founder.
Funny how dishonest you are when you act as truth-bringer. Your link says nothing about Shapiro's feelings. All it said was that he resigned and a bunch of other writers were let go.
This is the politically correct head-in-sand approach to Islamic terrorism. The terror is Islamic. It is inspired by Islamic scriptures, preachers, history, and followers. You can't address a problem if you don't identify the root causes.
How the "peaceful" Muslims respond to the beating black heart within Islam is up to them. But pretending that it isn't there isn't going to solve the problem.
The problem with fusion is that it generates relativistic neutrons that displace atoms in metals and cause them to become brittle. This not only weakens the materials but makes some critical materials like the superconducting magnets rapidly turn into scrap.
Not just scrap, nuclear waste. You know, the thing fusion was supposed to avoid in comparison to fission. It's yet another problem that has not been solved to make fusion viable.
Sorry, I'm not interested in sophistry. No more replies from me.