2126 pts · May 16, 2018
Tesla got included in the S&P 500, which requires all companies in it to own some of all the others or something like that
Why on earth did you do this?
And don’t call me Shirley.
Of course, I think numerical values might be a bit meaningless in this case - I’d call it more of a growth from xs->s->m->l
“Grew 3 sizes” means increments size 3 times. Size = 0, Size + 3 = 3
3 sizes, not 3 times
It was unguided *cough* so there are a lot fewer regulations, but yes, to some degree
No, it really is Almost Friday. You look forward to Friday, and on Friday you look forward to Saturday
.
We were both able to refine what we were saying, especially on a platform like imgur. Thanks for the opportunity 2/2
While I think we still have, to some degree, disagreements, I appreciate your willingness to have a civil and beneficial discussion where 1/
Nobody would really care, since nobody wants to characterize them in that way, least of all themselves
Of people who fit an accepted definition of feminists but do not intend to be recognized as such, and while being technically incorrect 4/
Intend to be recognized as feminists, and fit an accepted definition of feminists, are “not true feminists”. You could say the same thing 3/
There’s a difference between intent and intentional branding and merely fitting a definition. It’s a bit much to say that people who 2/
I think you’ve conflated interests commonly had by women with women’s interests. Knitting is not inherently feminine. But I digress. 1/
“Not true feminists” could well fit under the second definition 2/2
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism that’s not really correct. Of 2 definitions, the people being called 1/2
Then we are unable to have meaningful discussion about them. 4/4
The thing is, the meanings of group identities change and/or are co-opted. If we refuse to acknowledge the current meanings of things 3/
When one excludes others who have a legitimate claim to the name, regardless of by what definition, it makes discussion about that name hard
That’s close to true, but not accurate. A “no true Scotsman” case is an appeal to purity - one definition to the exclusion to others 1/
No true Scotsman
I have to ask what that means. Translating doesn’t give very helpful results
The male centaurs would presumably have the same setup, allowing for it to work ok
I immediately thought of the most recent xkcd too
What race are you saying says that? White people?
Place called “House of Gord”
They actually are the ones who have to work to get him to do that. There are/were months-long waiting lists to be part of the contraptions
Tesla got included in the S&P 500, which requires all companies in it to own some of all the others or something like that
Tesla got included in the S&P 500, which requires all companies in it to own some of all the others or something like that
Why on earth did you do this?
And don’t call me Shirley.
Of course, I think numerical values might be a bit meaningless in this case - I’d call it more of a growth from xs->s->m->l
“Grew 3 sizes” means increments size 3 times. Size = 0, Size + 3 = 3
3 sizes, not 3 times
It was unguided *cough* so there are a lot fewer regulations, but yes, to some degree
No, it really is Almost Friday. You look forward to Friday, and on Friday you look forward to Saturday
.
We were both able to refine what we were saying, especially on a platform like imgur. Thanks for the opportunity 2/2
While I think we still have, to some degree, disagreements, I appreciate your willingness to have a civil and beneficial discussion where 1/
Nobody would really care, since nobody wants to characterize them in that way, least of all themselves
Of people who fit an accepted definition of feminists but do not intend to be recognized as such, and while being technically incorrect 4/
Intend to be recognized as feminists, and fit an accepted definition of feminists, are “not true feminists”. You could say the same thing 3/
There’s a difference between intent and intentional branding and merely fitting a definition. It’s a bit much to say that people who 2/
I think you’ve conflated interests commonly had by women with women’s interests. Knitting is not inherently feminine. But I digress. 1/
“Not true feminists” could well fit under the second definition 2/2
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism that’s not really correct. Of 2 definitions, the people being called 1/2
Then we are unable to have meaningful discussion about them. 4/4
The thing is, the meanings of group identities change and/or are co-opted. If we refuse to acknowledge the current meanings of things 3/
When one excludes others who have a legitimate claim to the name, regardless of by what definition, it makes discussion about that name hard
That’s close to true, but not accurate. A “no true Scotsman” case is an appeal to purity - one definition to the exclusion to others 1/
No true Scotsman
I have to ask what that means. Translating doesn’t give very helpful results
The male centaurs would presumably have the same setup, allowing for it to work ok
I immediately thought of the most recent xkcd too
What race are you saying says that? White people?
Place called “House of Gord”
They actually are the ones who have to work to get him to do that. There are/were months-long waiting lists to be part of the contraptions