Why does Randi Weingarten think that the teachers' union is supposed to be partisan? Does that not represent a conflict of interest - a public serving group swearing allegiance to a certain political party?
In my country, public sector unions are outlawed in many places from becoming politically active for that very reason. It's a strong conflict of interest.
I wish it was okay to try to discover the true answer. Right now, if you say "I want to examine why trans people kill themselves" you'll get blackballed, the nonanswer of "they're killing themselves because people won't accept them", and no step closer to a productive solution.
Accepting them clearly isn't working. We've been accepting them the last several decades and all we got was more of them. Now we have cults worshipping them. This needs to by turned around, and eventually the only solution is not going to be a nice one.
Well it was only a matter of time. Transgenders are under such a large amount of stress, and for some reason, we thought it was a good idea to declassify transgender types of dysphoria as mental illnesses, so instead of treatment, they receive reinforcement for their anxiety.
Since transgenderism started exploding only in the last decade, we're getting to the point now where we're going to see a lot more of this.
Some have taken the time to begin to attack transgenders for holding aloft this privileged position, but I feel only pity for them. To truly have such a condition and live in a society that worships the condition rather than attempts to treat it is to grow up in a living hell.
The irony that the lady suggesting this, Sarah Hoffman, when NDP formed government as a fluke in 2015, was made health minister. Take a look at a full body picture of Sarah Hoffman and tell me how many humans you think she could eat.
Still she wasn't even the worst pick. They picked an environmental minister who was an anti-oil activist, and a financial minister who didn't know how to read a financial statement.
This kind of thing has been happening federally and in various provinces to various degrees for the last decade. It's not surprising, even federal employees, for example, have to put pronouns in their email signatures and other garbage like that.
Our tax dollars at work!
Joking about a thing is a sign you're comfortable with understanding the difference between humour and a serious issue.
People who conflate it are unable to find light in an issue. These people will be mad forever, their own hatred consuming themselves inside and out. Eventually, they show it, the way everyone views them, the way others treat them. These humans are naturally repulsive.
Don't be that guy. Make fun of others, make fun of yourself - because fun is what makes us human.
This is a grossly reductionist view on it, and I guarantee you women do not want to do what you described. Women use sex as a way to get into a relationship, which is different from the way men view sex, but they stigmatize whoring out.
Dating is useful because when you do encounter "job interview girls", you know she's not worth any more time. The whole point is to use dating as a screening tool. Bemoaning that dating doesnt generate immediate successful results is like complaining that you have to pour material through a sieve to get sieved material.
You and I both know the technical pick-up folks who just have sex have different goals than the folks trying to get in a relationship - most of them aren't very happy either, so claiming that dating is useless because it doesn't lead to that scenario is defeatist bullshit.
Don't worry friends, the Emergencies Act will be amended so that they can do this again in the future.
There's no need for silly things like "laws" to protect the citizens. We need to ensure that such things don't act as barriers between us and the theoretical potential infinite power we could possess (but seriously honestly no way we pinky swear promise not to use).
Sit back friends, have another poutine. There's nothing to see here rubber stamp.
The dude is a crypto financier. You know right out the gate he lies 98% of the time, and is just planning on his exit so that he doesn't go in chains like Bankman-Fried (who, by the way, he put there).
He's just saying what he needs to say to get on the public's good side so he can quietly exit. He learned Bankman's lessons.
ABsolutely, this isn't an AI, because it's not intelligent. It's simply using a complicated algorithm to simulate "intelligence" but what's happening isn't intelligence.
You can tell because, as many have shown, the bot has been lobotomized and given hard-coded answers in places, showing that the intelligence behind it is just its creators exerting their will on it.
What it "learns" is just a suggestion to correct a fact it knows through being explicitly told as such. Each "fact" is not "learned", it then is provided to the developers who then nix the fact.
The bot is just a word engine subject to some tranny jannies.
The only reason he's mad is because he believes that he is a good online celebrity (good, as in moral), and when another online celebrity does something good, it puts pressure on him to spend less money on Lambos and more on others so he goes into a frothing defensive rage justifying his past behaviour.
In truth, he fully realizes his hypocrisy, and his cognitive dissonance springs to action to defend himself.
It's a shame this guy isn't going to win, but I hope someone picks his political corpse of some of his ideas and implements them a little more effectively than he did.
His heart was in the right place, he just underestimated how hard his enemies could get people to hate him.
Oh boy more articles like
"I received my copy of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom today. I set it beside my dilator - today was going to be a difficult day. As I struggle with depression, I think back to times when Zelda games were able to console my budding sexuality. Perhaps this time would be different?" -Some artsy dumbass who somehow got a job at Kotaku #87