I mean, yes and no. There’s biology that drives human behavior, as much as we want to pretend otherwise and physics are responsible for scarcity.

Given our biological programming and scarcity of resources there isn’t an economic system that can “be fair and equal” at any scale beyond hunter gatherer tribes.

Why would we move on from his admitting to what we all know, his goal is the end of our Republic.

What the hell are you talking about, we should NOT move on, that’s been the problem all along.

That would be great, she’s been a great governor.

Only thing that could be better is a Whitmer/Harris ticket or even a Whitmer/Shapiro ticket.

Even 20 years ago Linux was easier to install then Windows.

Last time I recall Linux being tricky was like late 90s.

Obviously you didn’t read what I wrote, because it is not a construction.

We are animals, we have two sexes. Those sexes are different physically, including brain development.

Human genders are the typical manifestation of our sexual dimorphism. Atypical examples are why we’ve constructed the idea that gender and sex are different, to be socially inclusive to those few outliers.

I mean, entirely false, but ok.

Gender is very much real, you just seem to have a false perception of what the word means.

Most of us do very much have a gender, it is a very small minority who feels their gender does not match their sex, and smaller still are those who, like you apparently, feel no sense of gender at all.

Being outside the common experience doesn’t mean you get to disregard the common experience any more then we should disregard your experience.

Except it’s dragged down by the average and sub average humans who’s data it’s trained on.

So it’s maybe smarter then the average, MAYBE.

It’s a terrible term for very real problem of toxic gender roles. I’m not sure if you meant to imply that these roles are only reenforced by other men, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Men and women reenforce these gender roles against men and boys, promoting the poor behavior.

Then you are not very bright.

Or more likely you’re very disingenuous with this comment.

I mean, you totally forgot how 9/11 changed our ENTIRE outlook on the world.

Sanctuary Districts, just on time per DS9.

Competition is great, a company that can’t produce a quality product and ships a CAR with beta level software that can’t update OTA is NOT competition.

The auto industry is highly unfavorable to startups, the competition you want will come from the old ICE OEMs.

Or in/on my ears!

Hair falling outta my head, but if I don’t trim my eyebrows I’ll end up looking like a sheep dog.

Because AI is the new because blockchain.

She chose to become part of the royal family, she knew what that entails.

Frankly being in the tabloids isn’t payment enough for what the get as royalty.

I can’t comprehend why the people of the UK put up with that level of bullshit. The rest of the world gave up on monarchy over a century ago.

Men get sexually assaulted as well, difference is nobody gives a shit.

Well, it’s a weird state carved out of two peninsulas and there’s only the one bridge.

Political extremists, such as yourself, are exhausting.

It’s like talking to a religious fanatic, there’s no reasoning with someone who’s made a decision based on emotion instead of logic.

So why dont we have tarrifs on the ones that are produced in Mexico too?

Mexico is not China.

It is in our best interest to have a stable and economically improving neighbor on our southern border.

Your all or nothing / black or white view of the world is extremely childish & naive. Simple solutions to complex problems are just how politicians manipulate those who don’t want to think to hard. Stop pretending that global trade policy is a simple solution arena & try thinking a little harder.

And this here highlights a core issue, the poor choice of language used to communicate the ideas.

Patriarchy and toxic masculinity, for example, are horrible terms for non academic conversations. The academics should have realized this long ago, and made a concerted effort to change the language into more gender neutral ones. The fact that not only has this not happened, but there is pushback on such suggestions, sort of proves the bias that does exist in this space.

Their poor choice of labels can only be expected to lead to the type of “man bad/woman good” thought process. Because outside of very specific academic circles, that’s exactly how those terms are read. When you read “toxic masculinity” you see “bad/broken men”. When you read “patriarchy” you read “men in control”, both terms are tailor made to lead directly to ‘blame men’ ideologies.

For a movement that, at one point, seemed very aware of & intent on changing language that reenforces old gender roles… they also seem to be fine creating and perpetuating language that actively reenforces those roles, when its men who’s roles are being reenforced.