Hey mid 30s is a respectable running time

Yeah I’m with you. Just want the downtrodden to prevail the way a footballer wants his team to win. Sorry for yelling in the locker room.

For sure they seize on these terms constantly, but these pundits are opportunistic brawlers. They tend to pick words and phrases they know are easily misconstrued then just amplify the confusion.

Consider the reason why a bunch of Americans literally never understood the slogan “black lives matter.” Its punchiness as a chant at rallies was the juxtaposition of an extreme understatement with police brutality everyone was intimately aware of. The blunder was trying to use it to spread awareness of the violence (because without awareness of the violence its meaning is lost) so all the pundits had to do to discredit the movement was just… pan away from the violence.

God damn it lemmy you know I can’t handle this much wholesome sincerity on a Wednesday

deleted by creator

Honestly real talk for all my inclusion and belonging folks: we really gotta work on our vocab.

Was the term “tolerance” ever anything but confusing? In my lifetime I’ve only ever heard it used by conservatives dragging out this straw-man. Did “tolerance” once connote open-mindedness, graciousness, charitable judgment, acceptance/inclusion, or anything other than “weary endurance of something unpleasant?” Legit curious.

Similar examples include “consent” (sexual). Why are we pretending its primary non-figurative meaning isn’t legal or contractual when literally trying to say it’s the opposite? It has a strongly passive connotation, to acquiesce to a request, allow an event to occur, or go along with a plan — as in “tacit consent,” “consent form,” “consent to search,” and so forth. So it sounds gross, like “fine I guess you can do sex to me.” I know we tried to fix it with “enthusiastic consent” but seriously has anyone ever filled out a consent form with enthusiasm? What we really mean is active, reciprocal desire. The point is to give someone what they want if what they want is you, not to secure their consent to get what you want from them, so why the fuck do we insist on still using a word that’s in so many ways the opposite of what we mean?

I even think Crenshaw’s identity is confusing, because most people want to think of personal identity as something discovered or self-actualized, but intersectionality’s dependence on lived experience implies that to some extent it’s always something that happens to you. It’s how other people perceive you and the labels they give you that furnish these identities. But that probably sounds like a good thing if wearing those labels helped you bond with others similarly labeled, offering you a community or roots. Otherwise, calling these labels “identities” might sound like letting others define who you are instead of deciding for yourself. Gender identity for example is usually approached as an outward expression of one’s true self which can entirely reject the labels others give. But to ask someone “how do you identify” concerning something like ethnicity or race is not treated the same at all. To an outsider, these theoretical constructs might sound preposterous simply because we insisted on using the wrong words for our ideas, then overloading or bending their definitions to the point that a person needs a graduate seminar to actually parse the intended meaning.

Edit: to be clear, I’m only against the word choices, not the ideas. It’s because it feels like our messaging is hamstrung by insisting on using the wrong words as jargon with wildly different in-group definitions that to outsiders can make us sound inconsistent, confused, or at least difficult to understand. /rant

They have (or had) a system for reactivation that involved endorsement from another account. IIRC it was QR code based, so one of my friends would scan my reactivation QR code and a few verification texts later I’d have my account back. The last time I was banned, it was after I hearted one of my friend’s posts about his graduation.

Insofar as everyone likes the wherewithal offered by pronominal and hitherto conjunctive adverbs

What year is it?

From now on, all ignition sparks are advanced. #progress

and I can only use every other road

Besides the fact that it’s quite difficult to do this non-invasively, giving anyone instant access to any amount of exactly what they want most is dangerous (Edit: likely irresponsible, potentially dangerous, like designing escapist drugs, fine line between helping and hurting, and you must consider both).

Definitely find lack of care on the part of fellow computer scientists irresponsible. I’ve rejected grant followups for thinly veiled weapons research for the same reason; i.e., potential misuse.

What’re you doing, bro-in-law?

Most of my lab mates are Chinese and I joined WeChat because it was what they all used. Everything was fine except my account kept getting banned for no reason. I had assumed it might be because I accidentally turned on a VPN, but ultimately I concluded it was because they didn’t want the intermingling of Chinese and American accounts, which was literally the only reason I was there in the first place.

Good catch

I don’t see why the concept should be unethical

It’s like engineering drugs specifically targeting reward systems of the brain associated with human emotional development and socialization.

Edit: more explicit

deleted by creator

Ah, legend

🟪 boys

it would be racist if white people tried to participate

“Racially insensitive,” perhaps, but just trying to participate in someone’s culture is usually pro-social. Only as a form of mockery would I call that racist.

I already paid $5 to turn the cable on.