44 karma · joined November 4, 2022
No, you don't.
>He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect.
The California Assault Weapons Control Act was passed in 1989, not "a few years ago". So no, they did not buy them "a few years ago". QED.
Yes, seriously.
>I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...
No you don't. AR-15s are illegal (felony) in California.
The problem is that any discussion involving gender, sexuality or identity will sooner or later devolve into flamewars, with zero arguments backed by serious research - particularly the "liberal" crowd tends to aggressively stick to "there are more than two genders" while ignoring every single research piece to the contrary.
Yes really.
>Using the fact that someone put pronouns in their profile is a bad faith move?
No, putting pronouns in your profile is a red flag for bad faith moves.
>Your account is literally a throwaway.
Which means you can expect unadulterated facts.
>Calling these twin studies as settled science is the most bad faith move here
No it's not, stop denying the science.
>since the chief problem of this section of The Bell Curve is that it confuses heritability with genetic determination
The Bell Curve makes no confusion between heritability and genetic determination.
>mistake that informed scientists wouldn’t make
Good thing the Bell Curve didn't make that mistake!
>Unsurprisingly, that is why there is widespread scientific backlash against it.
There wasn't much scientific backlash to it because it's fairly bulletproof. The backlash was because of contained heretical topics, and may have pointed to blasphemous conclusions.
>Believe it or not, twin black babies separated at birth and raised with white parents are still treated as black by society.
"Believe it or not, twin Asian babies separated at birth and raised with white parents are still treated as Asian by society."
You're almost there /r/selfawarewolves.
No they haven't, and you don't need to be doctor to know that.
>I know that doesn't matter to some people, but a lot of us do care.
Lot's of people care about factually incorrect things that go against narratives for sure.
Very, somewhere in the 80% range: "The estimated heritability was 0.79 (SE 0.09) for height and 0.40 (SE 0.09) for BMI, consistent with pedigree estimates." [0][1]
>For bonus points: why has the heritability of height changed over time
It hasn't.
>and varied by country?
It hasn't.
Love it when the bonus questions are easier than the main questions.
[0] https://www.science.org/content/article/landmark-study-resol...
What usefulness do objective facts and the truth hold?
>It is true that in our society some people who you'd socially describe as men are able to get pregnant
That is not true at all. It's actually a gross inversion of the truth, a foundational feature of Big Lies. There are trans-men, who are actually women, that may get pregnant, but they're by definition not men. They are human females, AKA women. No amount of cross-dressing and body mutilation will change that.
>because they have biologically female sex organs
Yes, they're women. Glad we agree.
>We also know that following their social wishes (i.e. referring to them as men) dramatically increases their quality of life.
"We also know telling schizophrenics that the coffee maker IS indeed an evil demon and removing them from the office will dramatically increase their quality of life."
No, feeding into delusions will not increase their quality of life.
>Given these facts
"Given the fact that the coffee maker is a demon".
>can you really not understand why people see that sentence as transphobic?
"can you really not understand why not believing that coffee makers are demonic is schizophobic?"
>It doesn't accurately describe our social landscape, and it hurts some of the more vulnerable among us.
It does accurately describe our social and biological landscape. If biological realities, truth, and objective facts hurt "the most vulnerable among us", it sounds like they have a mental illness.
You're denying settled science. Trying to tie it to the Bell Curve to assassinate the basic character of the science isn't tricking anyone. Pronouns in your profile only make this bad faith move easier to identify.
They're also an editor for the newsletter:
"Journalists can be broadcast, print, advertising, and public relations personnel, and, depending on the form of journalism, the term journalist may also include various categories of individuals as per the roles they play in the process. This includes reporters, correspondents, citizen journalists, editors, editorial-writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists (journalists who use the medium of photography)." [0]
>but I guess scare quotes around journalist fits the picture you are trying to draw better?
No drawing any pictures here, they're technically considered a "journalist". QED. The scare quotes are there because journalists "collect/gather information in form of text, audio, or pictures, processes them into a news-worthy form". Except nothing that SJWs opine about is news-worth, hence the quotes. QED.
>They are stating a fact WITH a citation, but it annoys you?
They are not stating facts, and the citation does not have data that supports their conclusions.
>I never understand this false outrage
I'm not a child nor a leftist. Don't misinterpret annoyance with neo-Puritanical performative Wokeism with "outrage".
>Females and minorities have minuscule numbers in tech
This is objectively false.
>having a modest attempt at growing numbers has a big backlash.
"People are upset because they're targeted by my brand of racism/sexism. I don't get it!"
>And in THIS case, the fact cited is that disadvantaged people are MORE likely to lose their jobs.
They're not disadvantaged, and they're overrepresented in the roles that are being reduced (HR). Remember your rule: "any inequality is inequity". Glad they can fire some of these women and hire men in HR since men are underrepresented in these roles.
Yes, they do.
>Try keeping sushi in a fridge for a few weeks and then eating it, and see what happens to you. Many vegetables don't do well in a fridge either, and wilt after a few days.
Luckily we've invented these things called freezers, and most refrigerators come with them. Veggies will last weeks in there, if not longer.
Luckily we invented refrigerators so this is not an issue. Things can stay fresh and just as healthy for weeks.
>More resources? If you're walking to the store, this shouldn't be an issue, and in fact is a negative. Avoiding walking is why Americans are so fat.
As in, buying in bulk saves money and resources versus buying in small amounts. Indeed Americans are fat, but adding a few walks here and there isn't going to fix that. American diet is absolute garbage and the portions are insane.
Kill JavaScript. Behead JavaScript. Roundhouse kick JavaScript into the concrete. Slam dunk a JavaScript baby (Node.js) into the trashcan. etc.
It's literally the title of the linked article. I don't think editorializing and changing titles to placate neo-Puritans is helping anyone. If you don't like the title, contact the author and ask them to amend the title.
They were full of liberals, but now they're full of leftists.
Is there a term for releasing products that are decades old in Asia/Europe in the US as new, cool, hip, etc.? Maybe "technology arbitrage"?