Not in any meaningful way.
Not in any meaningful way.
I doubt it would affect sales at all. Organic producers would explain reality to their customers, where gigantic food factory corporations apparently are incapable of discussing facts with their customers.
Because I'm not a Puritan. People should be allowed to destroy or cultivate their own lives as they see fit. And they can't do that when the conditions they care about are hidden from them.
Now I want to write a library that determines if a given Internet comment is written by someone who is obviously butthurt about having lots of privilege but experiencing the reality that people with less privilege aren't entirely silent and therefore not 100% avoidable.
Yeah us white men folks have it so bad. It sure is a shame to be among the best paid and most over-represented group in a prosperous economic segment that's mostly immune to market pressures.
Quit whining that you don't have literally everything.
We will not act on complaints regarding
... responses to each below...
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Good. Discrimination of race, sex or gender identity is each respective thing. Privileging the "default" group for each of those to create a "reverse" is inherently racist, sexist or transphobic (respectively). If you feel like you're being treated unfairly because you're white (racism), male (sexism) or born with the genitals that match your gender identity (uh... cisphobia), address those the same way a person of color, a woman, or a trans person would. If it turns out you are actually being treated unfairly, nothing about "we will not act on complaints regarding reverse-isms" precludes a reasonable outcome. It just precludes creating a special class of each just because you as a supposed victim happen to be in the dominant group in one of those dimensions.
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
Good. Fuck you if you disagree. Seriously. Unless you are actively enforcing a law and have good cause to be doing so, you have no right to expect another person to engage you at all. Even if you are enforcing a law, most of the law is in favor of people being able to refuse to speak. That this is even being questioned is fucking appalling. If someone says any of those things, walk away and calm the fuck down.
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Addressed above. No one is actually required to explain anything to you, at all, ever. This is minutiae.
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
The above is instructive. If you don't feel respected, end the conversation. If you aren't honored in doing so, you have a valid complaint. End of discussion.
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
Here there may be a valid complaint, because it's limited. Criticizing anything should be acceptable, and it implicitly suggests that certain criticism is more protected than other. But while it's not comprehensive, it's certainly not objectionable in its limited scope. No action should be taken to prevent criticism; therefore, no action should be taken to prevent criticism of racism, sexism, transphobia, or any oppressive behavior or assumptions. That's just tautological.
You can't possibly be that stupid.
The relative privilege of whiteness exceeds the relative privilege of maleness. The consequent relative advancement of white women exceeds that of other under-represented groups, and the relative culture of privilege of white women broadly undermines solidarity in broader advancement: the success profile of white women in business today more closely resembles that of white men than it does those of people of color, whether men or women; this alignment creates a set of incentives to prefer existing power structures over those which favor more equity for people who are represented or rewarded less.
Why is this hard to grasp? It literally requires understanding the word "relative".
They promise security
No they don't.
If the former scenario is true, it suggests a sort of paradox wherein the advantage in intuition turns out to lead to choices that effectively negate the intuitive advantage. This is the hilarious kind of crap that gets fun to think about while you're stoned, but it would have no impact on the study results and thus has no bearing on science (apart from modern physics, where making up really interesting but untestable ideas to explain stuff is pretty much the state of the art).
If the latter scenario is true, the study results would likely be different, as the suggested deleterious effects of the drug would impact testing performance. But that isn't the case, is it?
Oh hell for fucks actual sake actually really seriously are you kidding the person that is me?
Bowie always made better music than NiN
I won't disagree, but that's a pretty weird juxtaposition given their collaboration, mutual inspiration, and the incredible music that came out of both from that era.
Disco was pretty much predicated on being at least okay.
I wasn't actually trying to be funny? I was trying to sincerely discuss the actual discussion that was actually happening around your comment, and I repeatedly asked why you weren't. But if personal attacks is your thing, don't let me stand in the way. I do actually have better things to do.
Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly