Another example might be shopping carts or session storage. Anything that persists from page to page. Does the site have an option for dark mode display? Probably stored in a cookie. Option to change the display language? Yeah, also likely a cookie.
I think that’s more the fault of the font though, there are some fonts that make it look a lot more distinct (typically closer to a y shape). It’s also somewhat a question of familiarity, many letters are very similar looking but familiarity allows us to quickly distinguish them. Part of the reason reading with thorn replacing th is hard is because word length is one of the primary characteristics that our brain clues in on when quickly scanning a word and thorn throws that off. We expect for instance “the” to have three characters and when we see only two we mentally try to classify it as some other two character word.
Get the LibRedirect extension. It can send you to alternate mirrors of the same info not just for reddit but a bunch of other corporate data harvesting operations pretending to be websites.
Men have exactly as much power to stop this as women do. None of the things you mentioned are acceptable. I don’t tolerate someone “memeing” Trumps “grab them by the pussy” remark except to paint Trump as a despicable person specifically because he made that remark (among many other reasons). Anyone trying to defend that kind of remark or shrugging off “all women are whores” as locker room talk is wrong and I would call out anyone who did so. But you also need to see how what you’re doing here is essentially the same thing. Someone said “all men are predators” and then when it’s pointed out that’s not acceptable you try to defend it by citing the statistics for women being assaulted and then dumping all the responsibility for fixing that problem on every man.
I’m not a senator, I’m not a congressman, I’m not a judge or governor, I’m not a cop, I’m not even a manager. My ability to fix society’s problems is highly limited, mostly what I can do is call out bad behaviour when I see it which is exactly what I did in this instance. Beyond that I can donate to charities that try to address these problems which I do, and vote for politicians that try to address these problems which I also do (not that it ever seems to make a difference).
You didn’t understand a single thing I said and keep trying to change the subject. You entirely missed the point of the analogy which was to demonstrate that using statistics to try to justify discrimination is wrong and does not in fact in any way justify discrimination but that sailed right past you and instead you’re hyper focused on the fact that the two analogous situations are not perfectly identical.
Then you went on and picked a different analogous situation but one which differs in a very critical way that undermines the entire analogy. You missed a critical point which was for a bear, not a population of bears, the longer you stay around and in close proximity to that bear the greater the chance you will be attacked. Bears, all bears, are dangerous. Not all men are dangerous. It doesn’t matter how long you spend around a man, your odds of being attacked don’t increase. Sure if you spend time around an ever increasing number of men your odds go up, but that applies to any interaction with anyone. The more time men spend around an ever increasing number of women the more the odds of the man being attacked go up. For a large enough population, no matter how small the likelyhood, the probability will always converge towards certainty.
Ultimately though it’s entirely a side tangent as the only reason the analogy was brought up was to illustrate why trying to use statistics to excuse discrimination is wrong.
Bigger problem -> overgeneralization -> backlash over the over-generalization while maintaining status quo. Wash, rinse, repeat.
That’s because making overgeneralizations doesn’t actually do anything to address the problem and only undermines otherwise legitimate complaints. Instead of wasting all this time trying to defend the overgeneralization, maybe instead focus on trying to solve the problem, because attacking everyone in the majority group regardless of their guilt or innocence just discourages any of them from wanting anything to do with you or even listening to your complaints.
You’re putting a bunch of words in my mouth here. I never said any of the things you’re claiming and this feels like moving the goal posts. My issue, was the assertion made in the post that “all men are predators”. There may or may not have been more context to that, but since that was all we were given that’s all we can go on. Either you believe that is an accurate and true assertion, in which case you disagree with me and really do believe all men are predators, or you agree with me that that is not an accurate and true assertion.
The rest of your post basically boils down to “you’re not allowed to defend against gender based discrimination unless and until you can show that you’re doing everything you possibly could to fix all of societies gender related problems”. If we all adopted that same premise nothing would ever improve. Or should we start demanding to see peoples credentials when they call out sexism, racism, fascism, etc. on the internet? Have you done everything you could to stop sexual assault? Have you been writing letters every day to your senators and congressmen to encourage new laws or reforms? Staging protests? Maybe working at abuse shelters? No? Well, seems like you don’t have the right to participate in this discussion then by your logic.
You immediately assumed that because I don’t agree with what you said I must think all men are rapists or sexual assaulters, or that I think that it’s okay to accuse all men of this thing. That’s not the case. But what I’m asking you to acknowledge is that this is a story on the internet with scant details about the interaction from a person who’s got every reason to lie by omission.
No, I didn’t. That was literally the point being argued over. I never claimed that there aren’t details missing or that there’s no potential subtlety here, in fact I very much agree with that, but that still doesn’t excuse broad discriminatory statements.
Had that point been made originally, that there’s missing context and we don’t know what the interaction was up to that point that would be one thing. I never said I thought OP was a good guy, I was just pointing out that saying “all men are predators” is sexual discrimination and wrong, just like the example given in another reply of “all women are whores” is also wrong.
You don’t stop discrimination by giving the minority group a free pass to engage in discrimination as long as it’s targeted at the majority. I would be making the same point (significantly more so) had OP been making discriminatory statements about women, the difference is I wouldn’t need to be defending myself from all of you. You should maybe think about that.
Does it suck to hear “All men are predators” if you’re a good one? Sure. But at the same time, people have no issues claiming all brown guys are terrorists or illegals. Or women are gold diggers. Or whores.
You literally just made my point for me. Every last one of those examples is wrong in exactly the same way. Or are you defending all of those as acceptable generalizations? You’re cool with men going around saying “All women are whores” and that just being an acceptable thing?
Sure but there’s a world of difference between “women need to be cautious around men” and “all men are predators”. One is an unfortunate but reasonable statement while the other is a discriminatory generalization. The former could honestly just be rephrased as “people need to be cautious around strangers” and it would be just as accurate.
The problem with statistics like “There’s a sexual assault every 68 seconds” is that they sound really bad but you can do essentially the exact same exercise with any sufficiently large population and come up with similarly scary sounding numbers. E.G. There’s a car crash every 13 seconds.
As for the bear analogy, while I’m sure there are plenty of circumstances in which a individual bear wouldn’t attack someone, as you spend more time around any given bear the likelihood of it attacking you approaches 100% even more so when taken as a population. The same does not hold true around men. There are billions of men on this planet the vast overwhelming majority of which are not a danger to women.
I don’t know this man, or those men, but statistics say 92.1 % of sexual offenders are men
Just like the example of African American crime there’s a lot more to this statistic. For instance is that number so high because most men don’t report sexual assaults therefore skewing the number of women sexual offenders down? There are lots of complicating societal factors there. Regardless that doesn’t justify the sweeping generalization that “all men are predators” or even the slightly weaker “most men are predators”, as very obviously the majority are not.
They’re likely basing it on a verse (that I don’t have handy at the moment) but it says something to the effect that if a mans wife is raped by someone he has to pay a certain amount of silver to the husband in compensation. I couldn’t tell you if it was old testament or not (probably though, sounds very old testament). I think the way it’s phrased was something like “if a man lays with another man’s woman, he must pay him X whatever”.
And if you think. “All men are rapists” is a sane and reasonable statement you’re definitely a misandrist and just as wrong as the misogynists.
It’s the bit about claiming all men are a threat. That’s just as wrong as claiming all black people are criminals because they have the largest proportion of incarcerations (and yes I know that’s got a lot more to do with systemic racism than anything else, but that’s kind of the point). Blanket statements based on gender, ethnicity, or even age are wrong even when it’s a minority making a blanket statement about the majority.
When you blindly attack everyone all that does is discourage anyone from wanting to help you, even those that agree with many of your points. Making far reaching easily disprovable blanket statements is not how you go about collecting allies to try to fix societies problems.
Sometimes mandatory arbitration doesn’t work out so well for companies either as Valve found out. When they run into what are effectively class action lawsuits but they get forced into individual arbitration with hundreds of thousands of people that clause starts to look really dumb.
Just going to ignore everything I said that proves you wrong? OK, you do you and keep being wrong, I’ll keep driving legally and keep my perfect driving record.
The only good thing about all this I suppose is I learned not needing to use turn signals in turn only lanes is a unique thing to my state, it seems like most other states do require them.
Anyway if all you’re going to do is keep saying wrong and re-quote the same debunked statement there’s not really anything left to say.
Turn signals are required, but not in a turn only lane. The question asked and answered wasn’t what’s being talked about here. Also it’s trivially demonstrable that turn signals are not required “anytime you are changing direction” in your vehicle otherwise you’d be constantly turning them off and on just driving down any random road as it curves back and forth. They’re required when you depart one lane for a different one. In a turn only lane you never depart the lane, it just becomes another lane. Finally quoting cops is a terrible defense as cops are per court decisions not actually required to know the law which is super fucked up, but that’s an entirely different discussion.
The clauses apply if the first one does which it doesn’t. Since you’re never turning from a direct course you don’t need to signal in the manner the following clauses describe. Since you’re never leaving the direct course, there’s no need to signal otherwise you’d need to use your turn signal every time you turn the wheel on your car even if you’re just following the road (which is what you’re doing in a turn only lane). You need to signal when entering the turn lane, but once in the lane you’re just following the lane (the direct course) and therefore don’t need to signal.
Yes because it’s irrelevant. The first clause failing means subsequent clauses don’t apply. Because a signal isn’t necessary it doesn’t matter how far back you don’t signal for.
The only law in my state that requires usage of turn signals states this:
No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
The key there is “direct course”. The direct course in a dedicated turn lane is the turn, so no signal is required. If it’s a turn or straight lane it is required as in that case the direct course is straight.
I stated there wasn’t a law.
You can’t prove a negative. You cite the law that says you need to use a turn signal in a turn only lane. Or are you full of shit?
The really disgusting part is that actually works (if you’re primarily selling to other corporations). Most of the most popular pieces of corporate software have the common trait that they do tons of stuff really poorly and nothing well. They get picked by the bean counters because the bean counters don’t care that it’s a fucking trash fire of a UI, they’re just looking at the list of other software they can remove because this new software does the same job significantly worse. That or they’re just mesmerized by the giant fucking bullet point list of “features”.