saltire?

This ain’t a referendum on whether individual white people can care about Black life. And I’m not saying white people can’t fight racism. History is full of effective examples of radical white folks working for racial justice. I am simply examining a recurring political urge that some white progressive have to be cast as the natural moral center of every struggle, as the default audience and the implied co-protagonists of Black resistance, or as proof of one’s own moral arrival. I’m talking about the desire not just to oppose injustice, but to be seen opposing it in a way that feels redemptive, cinematic, and low-cost.

Assuming you’re white, my question for you would be: why would someone who isn’t black want to not just support them, but to join them? Why isn’t it it enough to fight racial inequality in literally any other way?

If you have a problem with the statement “it’s not for you”, then maybe some self-examination is in order. But whether or not you like it…it’s not for you.

I’m white. It’s not for me. I’m OK with that. There are many ways I can fight inequality, and even support the New Black Panthers. But I don’t have to join them to do that.

Exactly. I’d speculate that they were only pissed that there was so much publicity and that they had to pay out (although they still cheated by only giving 20% to the Caltech students). Otherwise, they could totally get away mostly paying out “winners” that were either employees or relatives, like they did for years with the Monopoly contests.

What? RTFA. 2 boys were charged by the Sheriff’s department. They didn’t face any punishment from the school, but law enforcement definitely investigated.

I’m sorry for being confused about their music and Reagan being confused about the Roman Empire.

I can’t believe nobody realizes this is Trump’s doing. He wants to Make America Grate Again.

What’s the cup barely visible on the left? I’m wondering if that one explains the gigantic taco.

You mean Green Burrito?

If the trash is not close enough to the door, that paper towel goes on the floor. I know it’s a bit rude, but every public restroom should have it close enough to do this.

I heard that motherfucker had, like, 30 goddamn dicks

War is God’s way of teaching us geography.

• Paul Rodriguez

that’s a comma

Must have been doing a lot of base-12 math?

Yeah that smells different

I believe that the reason everyone is having an issue with your question - and your replies - is that you’re communicating poorly.

You seem to be inventing usages for words and terms that have well-established, widely understood meanings: “house trained” already means something unrelated to human behavior, but you seem to be using it in a way similar to “domesticated”. “Manic” is commonly associated with mental health conditions, so you being confused as to why that was mentioned doesn’t make sense when you were the one to mention mania:

Since when I experience protohuman traits such as Kill, Conquer and Reproduce. It doesn’t feel anything like what is explained or expected with Mania.

Also:

House trained (less calm (instead of more controlled)

I just can’t figure out what that is supposed to mean. Being civilized is less calm?

Regardless, to attempt to answer what I think you’re asking: these “protohuman traits” such as “Kill, Conquer, and Reproduce” were selected over millions of years of predatory competition. But once civilization became the dominant selection filter, survival was more contingent upon cooperation than domination and aggression.

Physiologically, our endocrine systems didn’t need to change, though - there’s been either not enough selection pressure or not enough time for there to be a noticeable difference in how we process various enzymes and hormones that we evolved to survive as hunter-gatherers. It simply hasn’t been necessary to our survival to “control” it.

Besides, it took millions of years and thousands of mutations across thousands of speciation events to develop that extremely complex system, and civilization has only been around for about 20,000 years, and - at most - two or three hominid species.

I was thinking the same. I’ve always had a “sensitivity” (?) to kiwi, mango, papaya, avocado, and melons (plus bananas and tree nuts when I was younger, but that seems to have disappeared). Never had an issue with latex.

I’ve been told that it is technically an allergy, but like you it’s not the kind (or at least magnitude) that will kill me - it just gives me an itchy, burning mouth and throat. I’ve never tried taking an antihistamine to alleviate the symptoms, though - I just avoid them. Don’t especially care for most of those anyway. Besides, it’s a very weak reaction so even if I do end up eating them it’s just kind of annoying.

Sadly, I admit I could not locate Aberbijian on a map either.

Interesting. So even Hannity is sensing that maybe this isn’t a great look for MAGA, and is trying (lying) to act like it really doesn’t have anything to do with them.

Unfortunately, because 99% of Hannity’s audience lives in an echo chamber, they’ll never know what he says is just plain lies. They’ll never see Politifact, and wouldn’t give a shit even if they did. It almost seems pointless to fact check these shit gibbons - their followers won’t hear it, and their critics already hate them and know that they’re liars.

How can I Access that kind of inspiration?

I partially agree - of course no one should disparage a victim for an honest reaction. However,

1. her one recorded reaction on one day doesn’t align with the months of hateful shit she spews and literally defending SA perpetrators, so it honestly doesn’t seem authentic.

2. being an SA victim doesn’t give you a pass for life to be a piece of shit.

It’s really hard to have empathy for a person who exhibits none themselves. She seems less human. The schadenfreude of her suffering is a lot easier when it’s someone who has themselves deliberately caused so much suffering.

I mean, not to overplay an analogy, but when a mass shooter is killed nobody says “I hope they didn’t suffer.”