So, the article this is pulling from is a 2003 academic paper on class, race, and gender representation in American sitcoms. It's not an LLM produced bit of of insanity, nor is it someone who has never watched the show saying something unknowingly unintelligible.
It's a joke. Some dry humour, possibly put in there to see if peer reviewers had any idea about the then current television sitcom landscape.
if abusive admins on a power trip will just arbitralily wipe my stuff “accidentially” whenever they feel like.
You've jumped to a lot of conclusions here.
You're using a website that's operated by volunteers, that's seen a ton of abuse from spammers and bots, that's run on software that's pre-version-1 and that lacks advanced mod tools, and that likely has an admin team that's using some hacked together third party scripts or tools to try and identify bad actors. It's not only possible, but entirely reasonable, that one of those tools may have falsely identified you as a spam account, and someone either just ran a script that banned a bunch of people, or got into a flow state and just hit the wrong button out of habit.
Pointing fingers and accusing others of bad behaviour out of pure speculation while you're both stomping your feet and having a fit because you feel hurt while simultaneously telling others that the lens they're using is "pure speculation" is... Not productive, to put it mildly.
Gender identity is a advanced topic that children don’t have the ability to rationalize.
If you believe that children cannot comprehend "boy" and "girl", then I don't know what to tell you.
Other than we know what all of this is really about. None of y'all are at all subtle about it, nor are you even a quarter as smart as you think you are.
theatrical appearance of competence and authority
No, no, no. It's maintaining the visage of wealth (which is also authority). It has nothing to do with looking impressive or competent, and everything to do with signalling what economic class you're supposed to come from to belong there.
Apparently they just think that their own disengagement with their kids' education is a conspiracy against them personally.
If he can get QI removed, take the win, then people could sue him for any of his dirty cop actions.
"I believe other people's human rights should be violated because I don't like them" is a great position to have right up until you're the disliked party.
I imagine you picture yourself as always the top dog. Protected, even, by the belief that even if you find yourself face down in the mud, the people you gleefully abuse will not step on your head to let you drown in the muck.
And you're probably right that they wouldn't. Because they're probably better people than you are, having had to learn empathy in a world that doesn't think much of them.
But I kind of hope you choke on dirt.
Yes, Biden hitting the rail workers with a back-to-work order was a blow to labour, but I think it's important to understand how much of what politicians does is symbolic, and, importantly, reactive.
The symbolism of Biden not just showing support for striking auto workers, but also working the picket line, is a MASSIVE. And it reflects the growing and persistent public support for striking workers in the US. He's not sticking his neck out here, he's trying to catch a wave in public sentiment, and his engagement has the potential to grow that wave even further.
That's huge, and it speaks to some truly significant shifts in the labour movement.
That doesn't really answer the question, though. Most violence is done by people who are habitually violent, and most violence is not completely random and committed against strangers.
Dude is broken, but someone being traumatized and repeating a cycle of aggression and trauma doesn't actually explain any particular incident they have.
Indeed. People like to claim that capitalism is the most efficient system, but what it's efficient at is transferring wealth to the ownership class.
That's what efficiency means in context, and in practice.
Indeed. An easy and straightforward method of regulatory capture is to convince politicians that the regulations just don't need to be enforced. "The rules are fair! We totally agree to them! Now, just let us police ourself, which you know we'll do a good job of because we agreed with your rules!"
Have they remembered to ask Boebert to abstain from making ~~pork~~ porn during Biden's impeachment carnival, too?