Getting a bit boomerish around here. As a business owner, let me give you a counter example: I have a stable of very qualified, reliable employees, which include a handful of younger zillennial and youngish millennials. They are by and large as competent and deserving as my older employees. However, I have no upward mobility for them; the choice ends up between "extremely competent veteran A and extremely competent new guy B" and that is, from my view as the owner and operator, a no-brainer, keep the older vet where he is, and hope I can pay enough to the young guy that he sticks around. But....that's asking a lot, and it might take 10-15 years of his working at the lower wages than the senior staff on the hope they will retire, die, or move on at some point. Almost all of my senior staff are old millennials or gen X, and both groups realize they are fucked when it comes to retirement, so there is no plan to actually do so. This isn't abnormal, and its not like some businesses haven't had this arrangement, but the days where I was able to carve out my useful status and climb my way to the top isn't so easy for the younger generation anymore. Having a degree does not impress. Having dedication does not assure recognition or positional mobility. If this is how it works in a mid-range white collar office like my business, I would imagine it only gets worse the further down the chain you go. That kid flipping burgers may not find the tiny net gain of moving to a slightly different, equally devalued job to be worth it, especially when those jobs already have a stagnant lock with older senior employees on the chain to the top in a death grip on their jobs because my generation, the Gen Xers, know they will not be able to retire from work..

I could see this making sense in Gran Turismo, but the moment it happens in a Final Fantasy or Horizons game....bleh.

Yes but the responses you can get for an obvious question's responses on Slash Dot an be priceless.

I've seen some evidence of this. It doesn't invalidate grading, but shows how it can be abused. I was once in a class where it rapidly became clear that I was getting an A along with my male comrades, but no woman in the class was getting better than a B, even in cases where the work completed appeared to be identical in quality and content when we compared. It was pretty clear the stodgy old professor (who was 82, and this was a class in 1991) had a firm opinion on some extra meaning behind the grades.

You didn't quote the rest, including the details on Leeann Tweeden's own raunchy behavior and later acknowledgement that lack of investigation on the allegations led to several false accusations

You are linking to sites where viable explanations are known to exist, or the photos show clear evidence of fakery, or at the very least lack of credulity.

I sincerely wish I make it to the same age you are at with my mental faculties in such good shape (alas I doubt it will happen for me, but who knows).

He could be 95. That makes him 4 years older than my boss at work. Yes, seriously. If he's here posting I'd say kudos, as his post is a lot clearer than the ones my boss (or even those in their 80's I know) are. Almost suspiciously so, one might say.

That is really not a slightly more probable theory. Time travelers and little green men are both wildly improbable, but physics suggest strongly it is more probable we might see something subluminal show up directed by an alien intelligence than it would ever be that we'd see time travelers.

I wouldn't buy Far Cry 6 for the cockfighting, which is kind of horrifying to me, but that's because I'm generally opposed to this sort of thing in real life and don't really think I'd derive any enjoyment out of participating in a simulation. But that's a personal thing, and I would no begrudge someone who did enjoy the game for it, and given its a popular sport in much of Latin America it sounds thematically appropriate, I would assume. I am surprised Ubisoft put this in, though. Their other games over the last couple years have been remarkably tepid and uninteresting for the most part, as they try to avoid offending anyone specifically, and this feels....uncharacteristically bold for them. I'd expect them to make them robot chickens and make the villains all Steve Jobs lookalikes, as opposed to --you know-- something actually provocative.

Your post is good because it does something that rarely happens in this sort of conversation: identifies that there are really three different things going on here: gender as a social construct (identify in a masculine/feminine/other role), gender as an attraction preference (attracted to X looks), and gender as a biological component (born male/female with rare occasional birth defects such as hermaphrodites). A lot of people seem to talk at cross purposes and get really flipped out about the social construct element, particularly when it gets conflated with the biological portion of the puzzle, which ultimately is a hard limiter on a species' ability to soak gender diversity as a social construct. In the end, you will need a majority of a species to hold a majority which still behaves according to biological imperative to survive and move forward, and any social construct on gender which works against this necessity will inevitably die out or remain fringe. In the end, we just need an equilibrium between the people who want to fall outside of gender norms and those who much prefer to have their gender norms align with their biological sexual identity. Until we can grow babies in vats, this is how it shall shake out.

You really needed to respond to the proper context of Dave Chappelle's joke. Right now you're basically proving the case that gay rights have advanced farther and more effectively than black rights to life. Then you are shaming him for not being properly POC by your own definition. If I were Dave Chappelle I'd suggest "fuck you and you proved my joke's point" as a proper response.

That's how people who have been part of the ruling social class/culture might feel (Christians, in other words), as they note the erosion of their ability to enforce their worldview on everyone else. As soon as you stop being one of them, your level of freedom actually dramatically rises. They, of course, do not like this and especially don't like their ability to put down or otherwise abuse and suppress everyone else.

Yeah that kneeling on his neck for eight minutes on camera was pure incidental. /S

Free speech is not a crime, but hate speech and actual threats of violence are. Which despite their bizarro world perspective on reality is what most of these groups are actually engaged in. "I didn't really mean to threaten to kill all the jews, it's just an expression I use to engage in my freedom of speech," is not a great excuse or look, nor is it actually protected free speech, y'know?