You are conflating a capitalism with free markets. Not all free markets are capitalistic.

I'm not diaparaging Young at all, just making a joke about how some song/albums are credited as CSN, and some are CSNY, leaving CSN-and-sometimes-Y in aggregate.

Comic book movies are about as nerdy as it gets, so this definitely qualifies as "news for nerds".

You mean Crosby, Stills, Nash, and sometimes Young.

It's like the vowels: A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y.

So free speech for anyone who can afford to buy themselves some, then?

(Note that I am not advocating that the government force anyone to share their soapboxes with anyone; just commenting that, if all the soapbox-owners won't allow certain things to be said on their soapboxes, then that's hardly any better than the government prohibiting those things itself, and criticizing prominent soapboxes for shutting out some people is one way to prevent that from occurring).

A condo doesn't free you from rent. A tiny home on its own land does.

Everything else aside (I still have disagreements but I don't care to argue them, it's late), I just want to note that I don't think anyone's claimed that feminists and egalitarians don't overlap, but that the former is not a proper subset of the latter. Everyone I've ever read acknowledges that some feminists are egalitarians; the proposition in dispute is whether all feminists are egalitarians, or conversely and more to the point, whether some feminists are not egalitarians.

Yes, the whole point of that analogy was that the first premise of such a syllogism (either about Scotsmen or feminists) is tenuous because citing dictionary definitions to define who falls under the umbrella of an identifying term is inherently problematic, given the possibility (or especially the actuality) of people identifying with that term and failing to stay within the official definition of it. So defining "Scotsman" as "someone from Scotland", as obvious as it sounds on the surface, gets you into some trouble when the children of the children of the children of people who were from Scotland, who are not themselves from Scotland, are still identifying as "Scotsmen", just because they inherited the identity from their predecessors. Or likewise, defining feminism as "someone favoring gender equality" (which doesn't even have the superficial obviousness of "Scotsman = from Scotland"), when factions of later generations of the movement are not acting in favor of gender equality, but just inherited the identity from their predecessors.

Feminism, like most identifying terms in practice, is defined by whatever those who identify as feminists say and do, and to say that some of those who identify as feminists aren't really feminists because they're not sticking to some dictionary definition of it is a textbook case of No True Scotsman.

Alternately, we could take a literalist etymological approach (which I actually like, in general, a lot more other than the "an x is anyone who calls themselves an x" approach, for any x, but it doesn't seem to be very well-received these days), in which case "feminism" is literally the promotion of women's interests, period. To the extent that it's promoting their interests just up to the level of equality with men, it coincides with the dictionary definition of feminism; but the promotion of women's interests beyond that point does not fall outside the scope of such a literal sense.

Although since everyone self-identifying as a feminist, whether they really follow the dictionary definition of it or not, does actually fall under that literal etymological definition, it doesn't actually make any practical difference in this case which approach we take. Feminism as what those who call themselves feminists do, and feminism as what the word literally says, are both broader than what the dictionary says feminism is.

When a large number of people who don't live within the official boundaries of Scotland nevertheless loudly identify as Scotsmen (and have some historical ties to possibly legitimize their claim to the identity), saying "WikiAtlas defines the borders of Scotland as..." and then saying the people who don't live within those boundaries are not, by definition, Scotsmen, is by definition an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

That video is nonsense tarnishing PBS's otherwise good name.

Egalitarianism is literally thousands of years older than the first person to have ever strung the words "men's", "rights", and "activism" together in a row. Has that person never opened a history book?

Feminism has its roots as a subset of egalitarianism.

GGPP's question is analogous to "Why do you identify as a Californian instead of an American?" (and possible answers would be analogous too; someone might just be being more specific, or might be opposed to other subsets of the superset of which their group is also a subset, or any number of other reasons).

The traditional sense of "privilege" is not different from the feminist one; the feminist sense is just a special case of the general sense. It is a problem if people act like the special case is the all-encompasing sense and the broader, more general sense is somehow misunderstanding the concept though. I've encountered that problem with the word "derail" before, where a forum thread unrelated to gender issues drifted into a discussion of gender issues instead of its primary topic, and someone said that the first person to start the gender subtopic had "derailed" the conversation, which a feminist in the conversation took issue with, apparently thinking derailing meant only the one specific kind of derailing (changing the subject away from feminism to avoid talking about it) that she was familiar with, and was apparently oblivious to the much broader and older sense of "changing the topic of conversation" in general.

You seem to be arguing with someone other than me about something other than what I was talking about.

You missed the rest of that sentence: don't face problems "...that women do."

Yes, everybody has problems. Some people have problems that other people don't have, though. And being in the demographic that doesn't have those kinds of problems is all that it means to be "privileged" in that respect. And yes, you can be privileged in one respect and not in another, which was the whole point I was defending; that the problems that come with being a woman (that men don't have to deal with), or with being black (that whites don't have to deal with), pale compared to the problems that come with being poor (that even white men have to deal with, but rich people don't).

IANAP but I would guess that the quantum numbers add up such that it does look like the charm and anti-charm quark went "poof" in some respects (like color charge, I imagine, otherwise I don't see how the chromodynamics can work out with a five-particle system; the color of the anti-charm must be opposite that of the charm, whatever it is, and the remaining three red, green, and blue, respectively, to get a white particle as required by QCD), but left over residual features (like spin and electric charge) in the compound particle that indicates that the charm and anticharm are "in there" somewhere. I don't know enough to guess whether the masses of the charm and anticharm would annihilate and be released in the formation of the pentaquark.

The problem with what you're saying is that it makes accusations tantamount to guilt. Someone says something bad about you, or worse still, starts some kind of smear campaign to get something bad about you widely believed? With your attitude the possible responses are (1) deny the accusation, thereby "proving" the accuser right, or (2) lie down and accept that the world now believes something bad about you and there's nothing you can possibly do about it because anything you try will only make you look more guilty.

The good news is, now you can say bad things about people who want to hurt or discredit and there's nothing they can do to defend themselves, either!