Jojo

I gets me some delicious, fresh baked memes from above wholesome farm (discord channel) that I know won’t make me feel worse because they enforce their utopian ideals through heavy handed moderation.

Like a fancy butler with a towel on his arm, except, you know. On his dick.

Oh, you mean Watergategate?

Bet you it already exists. Either it’s been made and sold physically, or someone else has an STL you can use.

It still happens, but I don’t believe it’s as common as it once was (per capita intersex person, which is also a very small number)

Um, ackshually, eunuchs are in the Bible, including Jesus saying that some people “become eunuchs” to get closer to God. So…

Trans surgical procedures have some of the best outcomes of any major procedures. they are performed on consenting individuals who are always well informed and at or very near adulthood, and only after many other interventions have been ongoing. People who receive these interventions show incredibly low rates of regret (compare for example the percent of people who regret knee replacements or probably circumcisions), and enjoy increased happiness and satisfaction by almost any metric.

Basically every major medical organization in the world (and certainly in America) agrees these interventions are medically useful and should be performed. While there are doctors who dissent, they are in the vast minority and almost never actually work with any trans people, but rather insist all the doctors who do work with trans people must be wrong. It’s not a controversy in the medical world, just the political one.

So, yeah. To paraphrase, “When reviewed by people without the same clear and obvious cultural bias, circumcision only conclusively provides an incredibly marginal benefit, with evidence lacking for other supposed (and still very marginal) benefits.”

Covering up the sun (Dyson sphere program)

0?

I find it implausible there would be no challenge, so scotus would have to agree either passively by refusing to take the case or actively by taking it in order for its legality to be settled.

The point I was trying to make was just that linguistic distance doesn’t necessarily correlate with whether two things are considered distinct languages or merely dialects. There are languages less distinct from each other than Scottish and American English that are considered separate languages, and there are languages more distinct that Scots and English that are considered one language. “It’s the exact same language” isn’t always a useful ruler.

When I said

It’s a bit like if there was no Scots language, and the people in Scotland just still used runes to write but spoke the same language, except with even more old animosity fueled by previous governments.

I was referring to the state of serbo-croatian being similar to that imaginary situation. I understand that Scots is quite different from English, I wasn’t trying to erase the line between them, just to clarify that the amount of difference isn’t as straightforward as it sometimes seems.

I think you are confusing gender roles with misogyny

When gender roles put an undue and unwanted burden on women, when they become a rule, that is misogyny. If they were putting an extra, unwanted burden on men it would be misandry, but that is a much less used term simply because it’s so much less prevalent.

Can you explain how to expect a wife to do housework is hate for women. I know both are wrong but still those are two different things

Because the only thing that makes a wife different from a husband is the fact that she’s a woman. There is nothing inherently “womanly” or “wifely” about housework, and expecting her to do it all must involve thinking there is: an unjustified prejudice exclusively reserved for women. I.e. misogyny.

I’m aware, but even there the line between Scots and Scottish English is a pretty blurry distinction. It almost means “Scottish where I can only usually figure out what word that was” more than anything. Serbian and Croatian from my example are even closer than that, very much like Scottish and British or American English, with the main distinction that separates them being just whether it’s written with Latin letters or Cyrillic.

It’s a bit like if there was no Scots language, and the people in Scotland just still used runes to write but spoke the same language, except with even more old animosity fueled by previous governments.

Yeah, but it wouldn’t be “legal” unless scotus agreed it was, even if it happened anyway.

Oh, wait, hey! I actually did say basically this!

I expect at the very least you’d also need scotus to agree, though if legislative and executive are both willing to ignore them then …profit?

Whether or not something is a dialect or an accent or a different language entirely is a sometimes poorly defined thing, often muddled by politics or history but also by asymmetric or incomplete intelligibility.

Surely at least most would say Scottish English is a dialect of the same language spoken throughout the rest of Britain and the world, but I would caution saying things like “the exact same language”. Look at “Yugoslavian” or Serbian and Croatian for some other languages that are probably as similar and closely related as Scottish and American English, but are nonetheless considered separate languages by native speakers because it helps them to establish or enforce distinct cultural identities.

There’s I think a Tom Scott video where he interviewed someone with just the absolute thickest accent in a little Irish village, and he needed a translator from the village to mediate.