You can tell how bad this guy's discourse is because he has to use the term "cultural appropriation" and not just the much better fitting "appropriation" on its own because he doesn't understand what the words actually mean.
berrytopylus
joined 3 years ago
Carnist Catch 22, if it hits the beans then they'll be destroyed and you'll have to eat the pig to survive.
Yeah he's rich as fuck but he's not a trillionaire
Weirdly enough I liked having the one on one aide. I was basically out of the running for friends in most of my classes anyway so having someone on my side that I could talk to and an adult that was basically guaranteed to step in when I was bullied was a positive IMO. A lot of special ed classes can get fucked though, disrespectful and treat you like an idiot who can't even remember your own name.
Honestly 7% is higher than I would have expected, nearly a 1/10 chance if you picked someone at random.
Anyone shocked by Hamas having stockpiles of resources is genuinely dumb af. Of course you have resources saved up when your opponents are constantly trying to target and cut off your supply lines. What the fuck do you expect them to do, use all their fuel and not be able to fight back?
Glad for them, the western efforts to sanction and blockade Ughyur trade was going to harm all the people there (as sanctions are basically always guaranteed to do). The West is well aware of this of course, this is why they use sanctions to "punish" opposition so it's sure strange they're willing to use that tool against the people they claim are being genocided.
Anytime people say something like this, just read it as "when I grew up I didn't pay attention to the news and other people so it all seemed awesome"
Why would an anti LGBT group want lots of support from LGBT+ members? Seems like an easy way to fall apart once you let the mask slip and you won't have any backup because all the other anti LGBT people would have left.
You say "address" as if they were able to appropriately fix the issue, rather than addressing it as a limitation of the study. Limitations are fine, I'm just trying to explain the big one here in an easier to understand way because the reporting makes it seem like it's a consistent 12% eating a shit ton of beef.
A lot of this reporting is a big misunderstanding of statistics.
As the study says
About 45% of the population had zero beef consumption on any given day, whereas the 12% of disproportionate beef consumers accounted for 50% of the total beef consumed
Now just as a thought experiment, do you think that almost half of the US never eats any beef? No, of course not. But on any given day? Sure, quite possible. People's diets vary.
A randomly selected person might have a McDonald's hamburger for lunch and a steak for dinner and be part of the 12% on the first day but then eat mushroom ravioli for lunch and pizza for dinner on the second day and be part of the 45%.
And there might be certain demographics that are more likely to make up that 12% on a given day but that doesn't mean there's a particular nonchanging group of high consumers.
I'm not going to dig into the study here but just as an example, let's say Dog Breed X is 1.5 times more likely to bark than Dog Breed Y is. You can't hear a dog bark and say "Ah it must be Breed X then!", you can only say "Ah, it's more likely from Breed X than Breed Y".
There's a fun irony where when it comes to bigotry and racism it just "needs to be exposed to sunlight" and the "the free marketplace of ideas" but leftist ideas are brainwashing that need censoring.
Huh, I wonder why those double standards exist