Exactly. And there is a ton of ambiguity introduced with pronouns in general, but that doesn't mean we should add to it.
And, what's worse, is that it seems the people who insist on using a singular "they" when the subject is known don't consider the ambiguity like we all naturally do with the correct pronouns.
Unless there was something prior that clarifies who the main subject is, nobody would say "Jack and John were walking and he tripped." They would say "Jack and John were walking and Jack tripped."
But it seems with the "they" non-sense, that goes out the window. You'll see people openly saying "Jack and John were walking and they tripped," not caring that it could mean any of three different things.
And the worst part is that their improper usage means my correct usage will eventually be ambiguous. Even though I would never use "they" that way, I will have to superfluously say "Jack and John were walking and they both tripped" to ensure the audience I'm not using "they" retardedly.
Science isn't their new religion, "scientific consensus" (with the quotes) is their new religion.
We need to stop using "science" as they use it. Science is not whatever the media says is correct. Science is not whatever the leftist politicians say. Science is a process to learn more about the natural word, it makes no claims in and of itself and, most importantly, the shit the left pushes is not science.
Shutting down one side of the discussion and banning people who disagree is anti-science.
Claiming there is an illness, but only a select group of people know anything about it, and therefore we must do everything they say, is anti-science. That's more akin to religions of the past where a religious leader claims that God only speaks through him and therefore everyone must do what he says.
This is a good example of why the singular "they" is the stupidest thing when the subject is known.
When It says:
"Ianna allegedly had minors come to their apartment to take hormones and puberty blockers"
It introduces strong and needless ambiguity that makes it sound like the apartment is owned by both Ianna and the minors.
It even goes on to say "apparently without their parent's knowledge or consent." Is that referring to the minor's parents, or Ianna's?
In this case, most people can read through it and ultimately understand, but it still takes a pause. But sometimes, it makes the text very, very confusing.
Attacking OnlyFans is a waste of time.
Instead, we should be working to revoke the 19th amendment.
Why are remarks like this not tagged clearly as anti-science misinformation?
Besides simply being inaccurate, it could potentially be harmful as those who have been vaccinated avoid taking other precautions thinking they have a certainty that they cannot spread it to others.
Exactly. Charging him with illegal firearm possession makes about as much sense as charging a rape victim with driving without a license after they jump into a car to flee their rapist.
All Blacks are an expert in the use of force by police.
When people say "trust the science" and "listen to the experts" they conjure up images of old white dudes and asians in lab coats. Nobody, not even the leftists, mentally picture a crazy purple haired feminist lesbian when they think of a "scientist" unless they're pressed on it.
It's less about the drive and more about the story. I had intention to map out a longer, more scenic drive, with stops on the way and on the way back. I'm coming from the Midwest.
In particular, there is a particular car I want to take the trip in. It's a rarity.
I truly hope so because that will inconvenience people enough to stop this madness.
Getting invasively searched every time you fly a plane doesn't inconvenience people enough to muster support to actually have a movement to make it normal again, because most people only travel once or twice a year, and it's only a few minutes of inconvenience. Wearing a mask, though, affects you all day every day. Flashing a vaccine card to fly will be nothing, getting the vaccine once a year will be nothing, but getting a monthly vaccine will be inconvenient enough for the masses to get things back to normal.
It kills me. One of my biggest bucket list items is taking a roadtrip through Canada to Alaska. The more things keep happening, the more it seems that I will never be able to cross this off my list.
It seems unlikely that a measure like this would ever be revoked, only ever expanded. With mask wearing, that was something people had to actively do at any given moment, so people do eventually get sick enough to fight back. But flashing a card along with your ID before boarding a plane? Or having it fully integrated digitally? Neither pose any inconvenience to enough people to muster up support to have it revoked.
Our only hope is accelerationism, I believe. In particular: more and more booster shots. If a person is required to get multiple booster shots yearly, that can pose a significant enough inconvenience for "normal" people to get this revoked.
Video games used to be one of the few places where kids could go and unleash their rage safely and without consequence. It was a healthy outlet.
Calling someone a "dumb nigger" in a game when you're mad isn't racist, even if the person is black. Even if you chose that insult because the person was black. It would only be racist if you were mad at them because they were black. When you're mad at someone for a legitimate reason, like they just shot you in the game, you use the insult you think will get most under their skin, not always the insult that best explains your frustration with them.
Now kids are forced to self-censor on video games. This doesn't fix any problems. The feelings they have will still be there, they will just have to find a different outlet for them.
Sure, but a couple of the women in the beginning of this video definitely weren't healthy. LOL
I'm not saying it will, but I'm saying it should. And the fact that it doesn't is evidence that our system is broken.
Freedom of religion only applies to things the government doesn't really, really want you to do. No joke. The verbiage the courts use is that it needs to be a "compelling governmental action." Like, wtf?
I believe that you should qualify for an exemption because you have a deeply held conviction against getting the vaccine. I believe that freedom of religion should be that broad.
It's so crazy when they act like violating your rights is OK as long as you get the choice of which of two rights is violated:
You can either have you freedom of religion violated, or your right against unwarranted searches violated (this case).
You can either have your right against unwarranted searches violated, or you can have your right of free travel violated (TSA).
You can either have your right to free speech, or you can have your right to preserve your life through self defense ("instigating" violence from someone else by saying something mean, then defending yourself from their violence with appropriate force").
I've said for a while that freedom of religion only applies if the government doesn't "really, really" want you to do something. That's the only real standard the courts seem to follow.
As evident by this quote in the article:
"...the lower court must apply strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that the county regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. "
"the government must prove that the county regulations serves a compelling governmental interest"
Literally saying that as long as the government interest is "compelling," freedom of religion is null and void.
What a clown world.
The first amendment guarantees, among other things, that the government will not infringe on a person's right to freedom of speech.
There isn't a document or law guaranteeing that private companies will not infringe on a person's right to freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean it's a-ok for them to do so.
There were so many idiots who tried to apply the first amendment to private companies, followed by smarter people pointing out that the first amendment only applies to the government and being overheard by dumber people who then go on to use that response to respond to people who say that companies should morally abide by the concept of free speech.
The same shit is happening with HIPAA. There are so many dumbasses who claim that HIPAA prevents an employer from asking you for your medical records and being rightfully corrected by smarter people saying that HIPAA does no such thing, that dumber people overhear this conversation and think anyone who believes a company is wrong or shouldn't be allowed to ask for medical records is just an idiot that doesn't understand the law.
I'd be interested in reading the survey questions that got those results.
When I read astonishing survey results like these, I have to assume that all the questions were bullshit like:
"Do you think a crazy person who beats his wife should be allowed to own a gun?"
and if you answer "no" you're considered to support red flag laws.
She's the Dr. Phil of the nigger world.
"I'm not a nigger, but I play one on TV."
I would like to see them burning down businesses that require vaccine passports, and maybe even burning down vaccine sites.
We know they have it in them, they just need a little nudge (and a ton of Soros money).
How desperate for attention can you possibly be to need to fake a comment reply that you probably would have gotten organically if you just waited longer than a minute on a comment reply deep down in an alternative Reddit website?
[u/Jallen_Sandusky:](/u/Jallen_Sandusky:)
cant you let us day dream about listening to ANACONDA and praising kek?
u/Jallen_Sandusky (1 minute later):
nigger music sucks
The least we could do is put "science" in quotes whenever we're using it in their twisted way. The same goes for any other word, like "anti-vax" or "racist."
I feel that using the word "science" in their way without qualifying it with at least quotes gives them more credibility as any onlooker would view us as admission that we don't trust science, which they may still view as a process, not a bizarre consensus.