There are some shenanigans in this paper so far, like using regional statistics (conservative places) to generalize about very particular sociopolitical cleavages (conservative ideology) and failure to control for, or even acknowledge, more obvious independent variables such as local economy, infrastructure, and socioeconomics.
This is the joke. Absurdist hyperbole only works with a shared assumption or common sense to play against.
If there’s an intended target of this joke, it’s definitely not medication. It would be the inscrutability of the wording of that clinical guideline, which seems to imply morality is divergent but can be cured with stimulants.
Three sheets to the wind
I agree. I don’t think people should be expected to do all this to be treated like they matter in a society. I do it because I don’t want to go back to living in my car, but the process offers me daily reminders of how our system is thoroughly rigged in favor of commercial interests and against the human who wishes to live as a human.
No joke, once you start structuring your life as a business, especially as formal corporations, the amount of financial, legal, and professional advantages, opportunities, and protection that appear are incredible. For example, did you know that …
This is just a sample. Most endeavors and many functional aspects of personal life are by design simpler, safer, more scalable, and more profitable if planned and executed as a business rather than an individual in the late great United States of America.
I resolved it by installing an air purifier in the bedroom where she vapes. But agreed, her vape isn’t invisible (though I think some e-liquids are) and OP didn’t mention so it’s low probability in this case.
Does anyone in your house vape?
I’m curious about this. If demonstrable, it seems many Canadians could sue.
What is the typical user workflow? For example:
Edit: looked into this a bit. Did you receive an error message like the following?
This document does not allow you to save any changes you have made to it unless you are using Adobe Acrobat Standard DC or Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
(Regardless it’s totally shitty that government websites recommend a specific company’s software, especially Adobe. I’m just trying to figure out if they actually force citizens to pay a private company.)
To be clear, I’m saying gender identity isn’t [entirely] a social construct
Then I’m with you 100%.
Sorry for going straight to pedantic bitch over semantics, but sometimes it’s injected as a wedge issue by bad faith actors with local clout, and then burying the lede is a mistake.
Coherency on the gender constructionism thing is a phalanx for everyone in the space (protecting mostly trans folk now, others later) because the potential contradiction in the gender [identity/expression] distinction and the resulting confusion (quickly seen here) is continually weaponized by phobes in an old but still popular have-it-both-ways narrative about wokism.
Thanks for coming back to reply to everyone.
ETA clarity and context
I agree re: DS9 and SW with the recent but noteworthy exception of “Andor.”
Estate tax reform and/or UBI
I’m gonna guess you get push-back on this, depending on how you’ve phrased it before, because saying gender is not a construct is a strong/radical statement in the context of theory.
I imagine your point is that, for an individual, gender is not some arbitrary choice. It is very real. I agree. That is consistent with the idea of finding oneself on a dynamic gender spectra that is collectively defined; i.e., a social construct.
The people who try to deny an individual’s gender, who they are, by using social construct as a synonym for “not real,” do not understand the term and, more importantly, will always find some other reason to do so until they learn to be better people. That is, the term itself is not to blame.
Those people should probably read more. While a social construct does not have an absolute origin, that something is a social construct has never implied that it’s “fake.”
Especially at the level of the individual, where the gender “construct” becomes a monolith and internal and external perceptions belong to one person, it contains the entire definition for that individual at a point in time. So for the individual at a point in time, the construct is not only real, it’s literally all there is.
Yeah this is a favorite pet theory of mine as well, partly because I like imagining guys like Andrew Tate protesting being labeled “trans alpha” or whatever, but also because it’s just a fact that many cis people experience a form of gender dysphoria and commonly seek hormone therapy for it at early ages.
I’ve found that comparison usually clicks with uninitiated cis people immediately, even when they’ve only heard othering and alarmist narratives up to that point.
Corps gonna corp, but I’ve tested this with all the systems and network analysis tools at my disposal, and the on-device and e2e guarantees appear to hold, for now.
But people are right to be suspicious, because it’s rare. The engineering challenges of mobile inference compared to data center hardware, the expense of developing models without free data from users, and the lack of future data brokerage side-hustle options are why it’s rare. So anyone who can should audit these claims periodically, particularly with respect to data collection.
The trick is to save many jars of the stuff, so you can really go out in style.
I think the romantic element is linked to desire for intimacy of some kind or other, and is there to some degree in every friendship, but when that becomes a “romantic attraction” usually varies and honestly is defined in hindsight more often than not.
So, not knowing is normal. If someone is pressing you to decide, they can definitely wait.
The primary weakness of this paper is its complete reliance on two extremely small and poorly-designed studies. The first was performed on Reddit with n = 194 Redditors who self-reported how healthy they were on a 9 point scale, how liberal/conservative they felt on a 9 point scale, and answered a series of questions to establish a personal responsibility score (PRS). The second was performed with n = 204 local students, mostly teenagers, recruited based on political party affiliation, whose healthiness was established only by how often they claimed to take the stairs.
You should be able to identify at least 6 major design flaws in the studies above, but in short the researcher not only failed to prevent but seemingly employed predictable biases, especially in regards to his measures of health, which were entirely self-reported. It should go without saying but: just because some group of people tend to consider themselves better than others in some respect does not actually make it so, yet that is precisely what this paper says.
As to contrary evidence: you typically won’t find a paper published in any serious journal whose thesis is so close to “ideology A is better.” Eschewing scholarly impartiality on politically charged topics is generally frowned upon. Doing so in exchange for publishing and/or favor with wealthy patrons has always been possible, and while increasingly prevalent in recent years, it is primarily the realm of conservative academics if only because it causes a greater stir (shares, citations, impact factor). Even using the loaded phrase “personal responsibility” in a political context, and equating it to the term used in health literature, marks this as a rather obvious insider piece not subject to the typical quality controls. So, it’s unlikely you will easily find an equivalently obnoxious antithesis like “conservatives are less fit,” “liberals have better dental hygiene,” or what have you. But does that mean conservatives are healthier?
No. We can confirm this a variety of ways, since exposure to any social science will routinely surround you with high quality evidence to the contrary, but here is where I would start: