zalgotext
@zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
The moon, due to it’s unusual size and proximity for a moon, has a much greater effect on the tides than the sun. That’s why the tides are more closely linked to the moon’s orbit around the earth, not the Earth’s around the sun.
- Comment on Sea Level 1 week ago:
Earth’s orbital distance has pretty much always been “perfect” though. It hasn’t really changed much since it’s formation 4-5 billion years ago.
Unless you mistyped and you’re talking about the moon’s orbital distance? In which case, it’s actually kind of the opposite of what you’re claiming. It’s estimated that life first popped up pretty close to when the planet and moon finished forming, at which point the moon’s orbital distance would have made it appear larger than the sun and probably fully obscure the sun + it’s corona during an eclipse.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 week ago:
We’re talking about two different things then. I’m talking about how things should be.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 week ago:
So your argument is that if everyone has access to basic necessities, society would collapse? What in the slipperiest of slopes are you talking about?
If your “society” is dependent on people voluntarily going into wage slavery, maybe it should collapse.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 1 week ago:
Yes, why the fuck not? Social safety nets and access to basic human necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare should not be gated by some arbitrary number of “working hours”.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 2 weeks ago:
I don’t know how leisurely that leisure time is gonna be, considering he’s only got a hundred bucks to play with, coupled with the stress and anxiety of being one car repair or injury away from financial ruin.
You’re absolutely right that the social safety net needs improvements, but that net should be there for everyone, not just those that work some arbitrary number of hours.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 2 weeks ago:
Big “just pull yourself up by your bootstraps” energy with this comment.
It’s insane that you think people have to hit a minimum bar of “productivity” to justify living above a barely-scraping-by level, and that you set that bar at over half a person’s waking hours.
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 2 weeks ago:
Mkay but why shouldn’t someone be able to live a dignified life working 25 hours a week? Why does it have to be 40?
- Comment on Anon lives on a budget 2 weeks ago:
The $30 is for mobile service, the $50 is for home Internet service.
- Comment on know your worth 2 weeks ago:
It’s sad that the whole “meathead = dumb asshole” stereotype has taken hold, because in my experience, most of the meatheads I’ve encountered have been sweethearts
- Comment on Trump wants the NFL to change its name so that soccer is the only sport called football: ‘We have to come up with another name for the NFL stuff’ 3 weeks ago:
Oh yeah think of all the “soccer? I barely knew 'er” jokes we could make
- Comment on Karl Bushby: Made a bet in 1998 that he could walk from Chile to England. 27 Years later, Still walking. Survived Darién Gap, 57 days in a Russian prison, Traversing the Bering Strait on shifting ice 3 weeks ago:
DADADUH
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 3 weeks ago:
Nah you’re missing the point. The problem is that men assault women disproportionately. That’s what needs to be called out as sexism, that’s what needs addressed, that’s what needs to change.
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 3 weeks ago:
No, not never, but a monetary barrier probably does filter out some bad actors. Not all of course, and it probably filters out some good actors too unfortunately. But with the amount of assaults women are faced with, I understand why they feel the need to be somewhat choosy.
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 3 weeks ago:
Do you think it’s purely just sexism, or do you think it maybe has something to do with the strategy women must employ to protect themselves from being assaulted by strangers?
- Comment on Libraries are cool 4 weeks ago:
If you’re doing something like gathering research materials, a lot of times people will grab a bunch of stuff of the shelves at once then take it all back to a table somewhere to peruse. In that scenario it’s definitely likely you’ll forget where something went, or mix things up.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
This is just indicative of how dug in you are. You won’t even consider the possibility of being wrong as long as there are “experts” agreeing with your misguided view.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
No, I still don’t agree with the same incorrect bullshit you’ve been saying for the past 36 hours now
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
Are you serious? Like, you can’t be serious at this point. I sent that article to you, like 4 comments ago. We’ve already discussed it, in this very thread. 🥱
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
It doesn’t matter what arguments I give you, you’re dug in. That’s what’s boring - every new angle anyone tries with you just gets the same old tired “my science is correct and infallible, yours is wrong” response. “Arguments” like that are boring. 🤷
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
I think Richard Dawkins is a transphobe because he frequently makes public anti-trans statements and conflates gender and sex in a way that is weaponized against trans people.
If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that’s entirely on you.
Jesus dude this is just boring now. Claiming your outdated view is “scientific truth” hasn’t worked all day, maybe find a new slant.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
and then points out that it’s scientifically inaccurate
by quoting noted transphobe, Richard Dawkins lmao.
Why are you so focused on spreading transphobic rhetoric?
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus.
Hmmm, an interesting assertion, one that would be all the more interesting were it not for the open letter sent to the president, signed by ~3500 scientists, saying sex isn’t binary. Weird.
You wanna know what else is weird? This whole “gametes determine sex” thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the “scientific basis” for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.
You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
No, what’s disappointing is that you’ve spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they’re refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.
The idea you’re so vehemently “just being the messenger” for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We’ve learned more. It’s time for you to catch up.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
It also means there are more than two options for sex. Meaning it isn’t binary.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
Except when they’re not. At which point your binary clarification system has more than two classifications it can make, making it definitionally not binary.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
If no one’s arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It’s obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
I implore you to take a normal biology course in the present day and then get back to us
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology.
- Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs 4 weeks ago:
Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species.
Dawg this isn’t even true. What was the publishing date of the last biology book you read? I think you need to update your knowledge. The current scientific and academic consensus is that neither sex nor gender are binary.