There is a positive correlation between how often I post and how poorly my life is going.
“I’m ignoring you”
“You’re afraid to argue”
Don’t really need to argue when you do it for me.
And I did respond to your comment before it was removed. If you’re interested in a more in depth discussion on sex and gender so you can avoid unscientific generalizations, I’m happy to engage.
checks modlog
I don’t think that was it.
“Women’s sports should exclude men because men are physically superior to women.”
“Trans women literally are males, and I wasn’t specifically referring to them; I was referring to all males.”
“Literally no group of people cries wolf as much as transpeople trying to censor anyone who isn’t loyal.”
Disregarding the rest, transwomen are not all born with typical XY chromosomes and the XX/XY karyotypes for sex designation are a lot more complicated than xx=lady and xy=guy.
Aside from extra or damaged chromosomes, chimerism, and other genetic differences, there are mitigating factors in genetic expression that can affect development in a number of ways. As one example, there are women with XY chromosomes who don’t even know it, and recent studies have found a lot more of them than previously thought to exist.
So, even before taking into account gender dysphoria, sex isn’t that cut and dry in the first place.
Yes, you just described how a contract works. It’s pretty clear you didn’t read the whole point because that’s the same thing I said but in worse terms.
I’m done with this thread, but you have a good one.
I mean… they did take her work off the shelves. They did just make it harder to support her work.
Much of the article, and the headline of the article, are about the rules on public image not being unilaterally applied.
I can’t parse your last sentence.
She might have been contracted rather than an employee, and may have already completed her contract. But either way it’s fuzzy. She could have grounds to dispute it, because:
She wasn’t acting as a representative of the company or it’s views.
She was using her independent social media account.
Her sometimes incendiary, political social media presence was a known entity and apparently discussed, and might even be considered part of her brand, unless her contract outlined what she could and couldn’t say for x amount of time after completing her contract.
The book was already printed and shipped, their recall could be considered retaliation for her political views, since they don’t apply the same rules across the board, and the recall would hurt her worse than them.
We have the freedom of speech to say the consequences are stupid and unreasonable.
A colloquialism used to justify bad things. I was agreeing with you and adding to the conversation.
“It was a different time.” Wait, no. We still have pedophiles and it’s terrible.
How crazy would it be if we found out he did it for love?
Thanks for getting it.
This is why I can’t playfully exaggerate anymore.
Yes, I understand small changes lead to evolution. I condensed fact to a short, somewhat innacurate blurb, kinda like this headline.
At least I didn’t sensationalize it by saying it “breaks the rules of headlines.”
If everyone just kept producing their own species we wouldn’t have goddamn evolution.
0/10 headline. Not scientific.
I lose my mind over this, too.
ICE Agents Attack Journalists, is accurate
Confrontation with ICE Agents Ends with One Journalist in Hospital, is still accurate.
This title makes it sound like the journalist tripped and fell on their way to bother some ICE agents.