|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
of course not. but it's an ultra typical divorce.
|
On September 08 2017 03:47 sc-darkness wrote:
Fuck Trump. H1B visas are much harder now.
I wasn't aware Trump had done a single thing on that issue. Policies and caps are as they were to the best of my knowledge.
|
My favorite part about the new DeVos controversy is her reasoning that the civil right office wasn’t working with the colleges and universities enough. Completely ignoring the fact that the reason that policy was put in place was because the colleges and universities were actively protecting themselves, rather than addressing the issue.
|
devos remains entirely unfit for her office. unfortunate that so many people are willing to let things like that be done.
|
On September 08 2017 04:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 03:47 sc-darkness wrote:
Fuck Trump. H1B visas are much harder now. I wasn't aware Trump had done a single thing on that issue. Policies and caps are as they were to the best of my knowledge.
You're not aware, but I've talked to recruiters. Apparently it's harder for tech companies to hire people without a US based degree.
|
On September 08 2017 04:49 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 04:02 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2017 03:47 sc-darkness wrote:
Fuck Trump. H1B visas are much harder now. I wasn't aware Trump had done a single thing on that issue. Policies and caps are as they were to the best of my knowledge. You're not aware, but I've talked to recruiters. Apparently it's harder for tech companies to hire people without a US based degree.
Was it from their personal observational experience or communication from the department of labor? I'd expect even internal memos changing program administration to leak because it touches on a hot-button topic.
I approach it with some skepticism from the old 'Obamer had it in for the Whites and this govt idiot told me firsthand...
|
On September 08 2017 03:47 sc-darkness wrote:
Fuck Trump. H1B visas are much harder now.
This is music to my ears. I am thrilled to hear this.
|
you never saw richard painter having issues like this
|
I would take recruiter’s information with a grain of salt. They are likely doing a bit of speculating.
|
That H1B/ foreign worker visas are likely under review/ at risk due to the Trump administration probably is influencing hiring decisions. Why consider a foreign guy if you're not sure he will even be able to work in the US?
|
On September 08 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression. Ok, let me simplify it for you: Don't call women sluts or say they had a slutty past. Reach deep into the lexicon of the English language and find other words.
I wasn't promoting calling women sluts or saying they had a slutty past. I know consistency is not exactly your strong suit, but it is pretty thick even from you that you one the page prior argue that when people feel insulted by a term the issue is with them, and on the very next insist we use a term to protect people from feeling insulted.
And I'm fairly certain that before you try and insult anyone's English vocabulary or proficiency you'll want to learn to spellcheck and check for consistency in your own posting. In the process of doing so you might want to look up the word "promiscuous".
EDIT: I can't stress this enough because I know you'll get it wrong otherwise: I agree that we shouldn't call women sluts.
|
On September 08 2017 05:17 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression. Ok, let me simplify it for you: Don't call women sluts or say they had a slutty past. Reach deep into the lexicon of the English language and find other words. I wasn't promoting calling women sluts or saying they had a slutty past. I know consistency is not exactly your strong suit, but it is pretty thick even from you that you one the page prior argue that when people feel insulted by a term the issue is with them, and on the very next insist we use a term to protect people from feeling insulted. And I'm fairly certain that before you try and insult anyone's English vocabulary or proficiency you'll want to learn to spellcheck and check for consistency in your own posting. In the process of doing so you might want to look up the word "promiscuous". EDIT: I can't stress this enough because I know you'll get it wrong otherwise: I agree that we shouldn't call women sluts.
As other posters point out, a large part of America is “sex negative”, so I’ll stick with sex positive. It fits in the culture and the people I deal with. I don’t know what they are doing in the land of windmills, but I’ll trust you to make the best judgment.
|
On September 08 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:Rolling back the Obama administration's overreach of Title IX, not Title IX. It was a Dear Colleague letter, not ever part of Title IX. Excellent move on her agency's part, and it reflects very well on the Trump administration. No more denial of due process rights for university students. No more denying lawyers to the accused and the ability to cross examine witnesses. No more of the abuses that result in expulsions after everybody agreed it was consensual. Fucking great speech too, whoever drafted it.
Hopefully the accused can be better trusted alone with women than Devos's boss.
|
On September 08 2017 05:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 05:17 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression. Ok, let me simplify it for you: Don't call women sluts or say they had a slutty past. Reach deep into the lexicon of the English language and find other words. I wasn't promoting calling women sluts or saying they had a slutty past. I know consistency is not exactly your strong suit, but it is pretty thick even from you that you one the page prior argue that when people feel insulted by a term the issue is with them, and on the very next insist we use a term to protect people from feeling insulted. And I'm fairly certain that before you try and insult anyone's English vocabulary or proficiency you'll want to learn to spellcheck and check for consistency in your own posting. In the process of doing so you might want to look up the word "promiscuous". EDIT: I can't stress this enough because I know you'll get it wrong otherwise: I agree that we shouldn't call women sluts. As other posters point out, a large part of America is “sex negative”, so I’ll stick with sex positive. It fits in the culture and the people I deal with. I don’t know what they are doing in the land of windmills, but I’ll trust you to make the best judgment.
Land of windmills is the Netherlands, not Denmark. Preaching abstinence is arguably not "sex negative" in the intuitive sense of the word (after all they "only" preach abstinence prior to marriage), but I'll refrain from going deeper into that. You do you.
EDIT: removed unnecessary hostility.
|
On September 08 2017 05:34 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 05:21 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 05:17 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression. Ok, let me simplify it for you: Don't call women sluts or say they had a slutty past. Reach deep into the lexicon of the English language and find other words. I wasn't promoting calling women sluts or saying they had a slutty past. I know consistency is not exactly your strong suit, but it is pretty thick even from you that you one the page prior argue that when people feel insulted by a term the issue is with them, and on the very next insist we use a term to protect people from feeling insulted. And I'm fairly certain that before you try and insult anyone's English vocabulary or proficiency you'll want to learn to spellcheck and check for consistency in your own posting. In the process of doing so you might want to look up the word "promiscuous". EDIT: I can't stress this enough because I know you'll get it wrong otherwise: I agree that we shouldn't call women sluts. As other posters point out, a large part of America is “sex negative”, so I’ll stick with sex positive. It fits in the culture and the people I deal with. I don’t know what they are doing in the land of windmills, but I’ll trust you to make the best judgment. Land of windmills is the Netherlands, not Denmark. Preaching abstinence is arguably not "sex negative" in the intuitive sense of the word (after all they only preach abstinence prior to marriage), but I'll refrain from going deeper into that. You do you. But don't pretend like you are some beacon of reason when you are less consistent than Trump on Twitter.
he's probably not referring to denmark but to a more quixotic land
|
On September 08 2017 05:34 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 05:21 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 05:17 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression. Ok, let me simplify it for you: Don't call women sluts or say they had a slutty past. Reach deep into the lexicon of the English language and find other words. I wasn't promoting calling women sluts or saying they had a slutty past. I know consistency is not exactly your strong suit, but it is pretty thick even from you that you one the page prior argue that when people feel insulted by a term the issue is with them, and on the very next insist we use a term to protect people from feeling insulted. And I'm fairly certain that before you try and insult anyone's English vocabulary or proficiency you'll want to learn to spellcheck and check for consistency in your own posting. In the process of doing so you might want to look up the word "promiscuous". EDIT: I can't stress this enough because I know you'll get it wrong otherwise: I agree that we shouldn't call women sluts. As other posters point out, a large part of America is “sex negative”, so I’ll stick with sex positive. It fits in the culture and the people I deal with. I don’t know what they are doing in the land of windmills, but I’ll trust you to make the best judgment. Land of windmills is the Netherlands, not Denmark. Preaching abstinence is arguably not "sex negative" in the intuitive sense of the word (after all they only preach abstinence prior to marriage), but I'll refrain from going deeper into that. You do you. But don't pretend like you are some beacon of reason when you are less consistent than Trump on Twitter.
Damn it, I always get land of windmills and mythical socialist utopia confused.
And its really hard to escape the cultural overtones of sex negativity in teaching abstinence education. Even if it is just seen as waiting until marriage, it leaves the open question of what happens if they don’t wait. Practicing it as a personal choice is another matter and not what I was referencing.
On September 08 2017 05:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 05:34 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 05:21 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 05:17 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:53 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2017 01:42 Ghostcom wrote:On September 08 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote:
High level leftist tip: Slutty is the wrong word. The term commonly used is sex positive. So would you say we should adapt a new term because the other holds too many negative connotations and is pointlessly divisive? + Show Spoiler +I like the implication of the term in that everyone else must then be sex negative (or at least sex neutral?). We should likely treat each word in its own context and how it is used, rather than trying to make blanket rules for how we should treat all words. Call critical thinking and critique all the time. And yes, sex negative is part of appeal of using the term sex positive. I was ironic. It's a dumb as fuck expression because very few if any can truly be said to be sex negative in the intuitive sense of the expression. Ok, let me simplify it for you: Don't call women sluts or say they had a slutty past. Reach deep into the lexicon of the English language and find other words. I wasn't promoting calling women sluts or saying they had a slutty past. I know consistency is not exactly your strong suit, but it is pretty thick even from you that you one the page prior argue that when people feel insulted by a term the issue is with them, and on the very next insist we use a term to protect people from feeling insulted. And I'm fairly certain that before you try and insult anyone's English vocabulary or proficiency you'll want to learn to spellcheck and check for consistency in your own posting. In the process of doing so you might want to look up the word "promiscuous". EDIT: I can't stress this enough because I know you'll get it wrong otherwise: I agree that we shouldn't call women sluts. As other posters point out, a large part of America is “sex negative”, so I’ll stick with sex positive. It fits in the culture and the people I deal with. I don’t know what they are doing in the land of windmills, but I’ll trust you to make the best judgment. Land of windmills is the Netherlands, not Denmark. Preaching abstinence is arguably not "sex negative" in the intuitive sense of the word (after all they only preach abstinence prior to marriage), but I'll refrain from going deeper into that. You do you. But don't pretend like you are some beacon of reason when you are less consistent than Trump on Twitter. he's probably not referring to denmark but to a more quixotic land
You give me to much credit. It was Denmark. I'm just tired.
|
I've entertained the thought.
|
Omg its so hot in South FL right now. The sky is beautiful too, it's the calm before the storm, and this Irma hurricane is looking fucking scary. I've tried to prepare as much as possible. Let's hope it's not as destructive when it gets here.
|
|
|
But speakers have to be a member of the house, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
