I know gender and sex aren’t the same thing. You could tell that because I provided two meanings for gender, only one of which was sex. Your problem seems to be I don’t accept your definition of gender.

But this isn’t really your problem, because it’s not your definition. Instead, it’s a newer definition that’s been tacked onto the word, that you have accepted and propagated, and now are jumping on others for not doing the same. I ‘d be lying if I said I don’t understand why you’d want to change the meaning, to make it something else. It’s a good word for you. It’s a word that is already known, so it’s in the collective mindset. A new word would be harder to get ‘out there’, while another (weaker - lesser used) word wouldn’t generate as much buzz and discussion when you misuse it. It’s a cunning thing to do. It’s also unacceptable and vile. If we’re changing words’ meanings, then you’re welcome to find out

That’s stupid.

Has in the meanwhile been changed to mean “I concede that I am in the wrong regarding this matter and will take myself out of the conversation for future replies”.

To reinforce this change in meaning, I’ll be blocking you now. Have a good rest of the day.

Gender is a synonim for sex. It is also used when speaking about words - in some languages, words have a gender.

Rejecting science (biology in this case) is one major component of religion. Others are dogma (a set of principles that are taken as axioms and never contested, eg gender can be whatever you want it to be), heresy (eg offering a scientific view that differs from dogma, like the fact that biology presents two genders), censorship and apostasy (removing such an article for disagreeing with the dogma, regardless of scientific facts).

Seems to me like Dawkins slightly overreacted, but it’s understandable because he did so based on the religious-like fervor exhibited by those who would remove an article published by a biologist, debating biological classification, because they disagree with its implications.

For all the talk about the unscientific right, it seems to me like the left ignores science just as much when it’s not what they want to hear - what their group has already agreed to be true. This video comes to mind: https://youtu.be/zB_OApdxcno

I shit on Israel and their propaganda department

Hey, thanks for taking the time to write that out, it’s a cool bit of context to better understand why you guys have votes for some jobs.

Since some people are getting a paywall I’ll post the article text here:

Richard Dawkins has resigned from an atheism foundation over its “imposition” of a “new religion” of transgenderism.

Prof Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and atheist, stepped down from the board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) on Saturday after it censored an article supporting the belief that gender is biological.

Prof Dawkins accused the group of caving to the “hysterical squeals” of cancel culture after it deleted the article from its website, saying it was a “mistake” to have published it.

His resignation followed that of two other scientists, Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker, who accused the foundation of imposing an ideology with the “dogma, blasphemy, and heretics” of a religion.

The scientists’ resignations come after FFRF’s Freethought Now! website published a piece last month by Kat Grant, entitled “What is a Woman?”, which argued that “any attempt to define womanhood on biological terms is inadequate” and that “a woman is whoever she says she is”.

In response to the piece, Prof Coyne, a fellow board member and biologist, wrote an article last week called “Biology is not Bigotry”, in which he defended “the biological definition of ‘woman’ based on gamete type” – or reproductive cells.

However, FFRF later pulled the article after a backlash and released a lengthy statement apologising for the “distress” it had caused.

“Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth,” co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote.

“Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values and principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.”

‘Quasi-religious’ ideology

Following the atheist foundation’s decision to unpublish his article, Prof Coyne accused the group of peddling a “quasi-religious” ideology.

“That is a censorious behavior I cannot abide,” he wrote in an email. “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that ‘distressing’ and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.”

“The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (‘a woman is whoever she says she is’), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”

Prof Pinker, the US-Canadian psychologist, announced his resignation from the board by lamenting that the FFRF was “no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics”.

Prof Dawkins described publishing Grant’s “silly and unscientific” article as a “minor error of judgment”, but that the decision to remove Prof Coyne’s rebuttal was “an act of unseemly panic”.

He continued: “Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own advisory board. A board which I now leave with regret.”

Grant is a non-binary author and fellow at the FFRF, focusing on state versus Church issues that specifically impact the LGBTQ-plus community.

In their November article, Grant argued a woman cannot be defined as someone with a vagina, uterus or the ability to conceive, as this would exclude intersex people, women who have hysterectomies and those who have gone through menopause.

Grant claimed using biology to define female identity is “inadequate” and alleged that the views of groups who have fought against gender ideology “disregard both medical science and lived experience”.

‘New definition of woman’

In his response to Grant’s article, Prof Coyne accused the author of attempting “to force ideology onto nature” in order to “concoct a new definition of ‘woman’”.

“Why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality,” he wrote. “Instead, in biology ‘sex’ is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells.

“It is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights.”

Founded in 1976, the FFRF is a US non-profit that promotes the separation of church and state.

Ms Laurie Gaylor, the FFRF president, said: “We have had the greatest respect for Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and are grateful that they sat on our honorary board for so many years.

“We do not feel that support for LGBTQ rights against the religious backlash in the United States is mission creep. This growing difference of opinion probably made such a parting inevitable.”

lol not even 25 years in the game, what a noob

That’s a great argument until you realize the rest of the country (the part that didn’t speak) literally couldn’t decide which is worse or just didn’t care. So they did speak, and what they said was “hwbennfswbebnsjdjbdbshdukabw”.

Time to stop the Israeli social experiment, or whatever the fuck it was that they tried to do.

Need for speed heat is like 4 bucks, as a former 13yo boy I woulda liked it

And nothing of value was lost.

So if you get to vote for president again, you’d vote with the cunts who lied that you’ll never vote again?

Stockholm syndrome is a thing, and democrats have it. I fucking hate Republicans and Trump, but seeing a dem try to pretend the other side is hell incarnate and that Trump is gonna remove elections, and in the same breath try to convince you to vote for them in the future SUPPOSEDLY REMOVED FUCKING ELECTIONS? Jesus fucking christ what a disgusting bag of hypocritical chodes your party can be. Go pardon a criminal just like your political opponent is running from justice, and then come back to the table in 4 years to say you’re not the same.

Anyone voting for Republicans or democrats is fully fucking retarded.

advertising them somewhere else, Tumblr, throwaway eBay listings, Spotify playlists,… here.

You missed a great opportunity to have ‘here’ be a link to an emulator.

Nintendo goes on to claim that this subreddit has played a central role in fostering Switch piracy,

Piracy has been long ago defined to be a service problem. Nintendo should be suing themselves. I hope the lawyers eat it all up.

So a country’s internal politics don’t matter unless they fall to Russia - that’s what you said, right?

But wouldn’t you agree that the country’s internal politics are what decides if it falls to Russia or not? If education is not a subject they invest in, if its population isn’t happy with the status quo, if they exhibit corruption, if their healthcare system is so bad that the middle class emigrates and leaves behind only the oligarchs and the poor, if their justice system doesn’t work and they don’t feel safe… All these internal politics have a huge impact on if a country can be influenced by Russia or any other nefarious agent.

I don’t get what you’re saying. You keep saying “yeah but we don’t care about X”, while X seems to be the direct cause of some of your problems that you DO care about. Are you trying to say Romania should take care of its shit internally so we don’t have to deal with it, and not let it grow to the point where it’s a problem for the rest of the EU?

Does this election not matter?

Briefly? No.

1. This is the first round of elections. It’s not a FPTP system. Yes, he has a good shot at winning. But now he has to earn the votes which went to the “third party”, so to speak. Which is difficult for both of the current candidates.

2. Romania’s president has limited power and responsibilities. He’s there as a a dignitary and usually handles foreign affairs more than internal ones. He’s also powerless - the government and the parliament are where the power is.

3. Both these people are corrupt fucks. There is no winning this election. Yes, one’s worse than the other. I’d struggle to say which, although the pro-russian seems to be just a tad more evil.

4. Human nature. Sure, the guy is pro Russia. Great. But how much time will he have to actually bring Romania closer to Russia if he has to split that time between trying to get the country out of NATO and trying to steal enough to retire comfortably? He won’t get anything done, he’s too greedy for it.

Edit: Seems like the number 2 spot in the election may be taken by a less corrupt candidate than initially thought - this invalidates my 3rd point a bit. I stand by the rest though.

You think that’s somehow more likely than:

1. Fucker with full access to your bags while you’re nowhere near them looks through your shit

2. When they find a bag full of money, said fucker gets to legally take a percentage by just tipping off the DEA, instead of just robbing you and risking being caught

?

Decree 770 […] signed in 1967

Gen X in Romania is actually replaced by “decreței” - loosely translated as children of the decree. About 20 years later, they’d be just old enough to take part in the revolution that brought about Ceaușescu’s execution and fast replacement with a former chief of the communist party’s propaganda department, who had strong ties to Moscow.

You think they’re going to pay when they can just use force?

It hurts to do this, because you’ve obviously thought out your comment and you obviously like the game and want to believe the devs are doing their best. But I think your entire premise is wrong

To combat Chinese gold farmers, Blizzard started selling gold in a bit of a roundabout way

Why do you think this? Why do you grant a greedy game dev the benefit of the doubt? They’re cashing in on Chinese gold farmers in all possible ways, man:

1. By allowing their accounts to exist instead of banning and moving on
2. By controlling the value of gold with a cash shop, ensuring economy is in their favor
3. The cash shop also brings them monetary value.

They are triple dipping, and you choose to believe they are doing it because they’re a good game dev.

A good game dev would ban accounts guilty of real money trading. A good game dev would fix the in-game economy with in-game methods. A good game dev wouldn’t have micro transactions in a subscription game. You want to believe Blizzard is doing this because of those evil Chinese farmers - I’m here to tell you they’re profiting from this and don’t have the morals to make it right.