There's more light during the summer because it all leaves the people, duh.

What, getting your cause in the news because you got arrested for supporting it, while also showing the wrongdoers doing wrongs, doesn't have a positive impact? Does getting in the news prevent a genocidal, journalist-killing regime from doing a little activist-unaliving on the side? Or is it that no one could possibly have motives less narcissistic and self-serving than our so-called "leaders"? What even are you saying?

I always felt like it was a good idea to prefer imports from developed nations with functional, representative governments. As an American, it is pretty embarrassing for my neighbor to see my roommate's leopard eating my face though.

First sentence of the second paragraph literally says "What We Know: [woman's name] was arrested and charged ..."

I bet the lab folks could tell you what's in their product much better than ranchers and meat processing factories ever could. A lot of science goes into it though and some people seem to be allergic to that, at least based on the sorts of claims they make.

What reason, aside from unnecessary learned reactions or outright bigotry, would there be to separate chess by trans and cis? Deliberately separating trans girls from cis girls without some fundamentally necessary reason would be trans denialism or erasure, and trying to hide behind deliberately misinterpreting the suggestion would be a very cowardly form of discourse, so you may want to make your intent more clear if that's not what you were doing.

You can't imagine a person who would excuse getting someone so drunk they no longer refuse sex as "boys will be boys" behavior or similar nonsense, but would express actual disapproval of their child entering a same-sex relationship? It doesn't just mean "convicted of assaulting a young white woman at gunpoint".

What are the cops going to do? Round here at least, thought crime isn't yet a thing. It'd essentially be the same as if you said "Sometimes, I want to hurt people". If you're actually speaking with a medical professional, what you say is legally privileged information, and AFAIK for the US at least, that continues until there is reasonable belief that you will harm someone or commit a crime.

This totally glosses over the social aspect, but for any legitimate medical provider that shouldn't be a problem. I don't want anyone who needs help to be afraid of seeking it.

Should I take the lack of a linked source to mean that your intent was for all your comments to mean fuck all, or am I supposed to just take your word that your glass house is more stone-proof than anyone else's?

Isn't the problem then the abusive power structure, whether it's built on family/generation/age dynamics or something else, and that saying the problem is "incest" is de-emphasizing the more critical component (that's already avoided too often)? Not to say that incest is a good thing or even harmless, but to be strategic in framing discussions that may affect how people look at things. Missed the thread header and this might not be the most relevant place to reply, but wanted to get the thought out.

Is there actually something behind all these comments about his appearance, or is it just typical internet name-calling that mostly falls into the same anti-LGBTQ+ bucket?

I assumed it was just the numbers on the image, not the level of ADHD. As in "a person with ADHD who matches with number 5 on the imagination scale in the OP".

Not a true expert, but I think it comes down to "observing" a particle/phenomenon like this inherently comes down to some sort of interaction, and it can't just be neglected like you could on a macro scale. Even for something like holding a ruler up to an object and seeing what mark lines up, you're relying on a bunch of light bouncing off the object (and the ruler) to be able to judge that. If the thing you're trying to measure is on the order of one particle of light, blasting it with a bunch of anything is gonna affect it pretty severely, and who knows what a "ruler" would even mean in that analogy. So it's less like some idea of sapient knowledge, and more like when you struggle to measure something like a tiny feather or single bead of Styrofoam, like you can't even get near the thing without the wind from moving or some random static or something else moving the thing around uncontrollably, except many orders of magnitude more sensitive.

Re post text: For context, Washington state is mail-only voting, so that number would (I assume) be for all votes, not just specifically requested mail-ins. I didn't see it in the article, but I wonder if that is predominantly "centralized" or "distributed" in nature; i.e. are technically-valid ballots from all voters being incorrectly rejected by the county elections facilities office at different rates across racial lines, or are there other factors like targeted disinformation, education, local infrastructure, or socioeconomics that disproportionately affect Black (or other types of minority) voters that would make them more likely to produce a technically-invalid ballot?

Those might get the same statistic, but would seem to indicate very different sorts of problems and approaches.

What? I don't see where children are mentioned other than implied as victims of pedophilia. "Sons" does not imply children.

Eh, I think master is used (AFAIK) unproblematicly in other contexts like a master key, recording master, and master pattern. Converting it to "main" seems like a change or loss of meaning, but the problem may be that there is not really a consistent meaning across electronics usage to start with. I think "secondary" has some connotation of filling the same purpose or type as the primary, which doesn't really fit for m/s usage. Master/sheep is my most similar option that keeps the "m/s", but it feels awkward enough to draw attention to what it replaces. Could just do master (or main) and sub, where "sub" could mean substitute, subordinate, subscriber, [submissive,] etc. as needed.

Na: He's clearly referring to Niobium. I'm not sure what that has to do with the relationship between a Heads Up Display and this "Department of Housing and Urban Development" thing.

I'm really not seeing the flow from claiming that basically "selective breeding [some sense of eugenics] could result in biological changes in humans as it does in other animals" to being a proponent for eugenics in either a moral or policy sense. There was an naked counterclaim that it wouldn't work, but honestly that's immaterial to my first sentence, and I don't know that I believe it either. Could you create an overall biologically "better" human? Dubious, if you could define such a thing in the first place. Could you create a human with superior moral or intrinsic value? Definitely not.

It's certainly a completely bonkers statement to drop out of nowhere. There's no context given in that article nor in a few others I found, but I don't think it's unfair to assume there was some sort of context or trigger.

There was a apparently another statement about abortion and Down's that IMO just reads like an amateurish attempt at using absolute utilitarianism to make a profound, off-the-cuff observation based on a pretty ignorant set of assumptions. Yes, it's a stupid statement that makes a pretty generic argument for eugenics with other assumptions, but the core claim of "an action that causes net negative happiness in the world is immoral" is, strictly speaking, not morally indefensible. There is a correcting of facts required, but essentially the same logic is used for the fairly non-controversial (as any abortion, at least) termination of a pregnancy that would only result in suffering and a dead baby. Correcting facts is, I think, much less substantial than correcting thinking.

Is there anything else substantial I didn't see? To use just this as a basis for a declaration of "open eugenicist", to me, just dilutes very powerful terminology that I'm sure many people definitely fit.

Also, as a side note, some of the takes in some counter-articles were absolutely wild. If your position is that (even if you don't recognize it yourself) "Gee honey, I don't think we're in a financial position to try for another baby" is eugenics, it's hard to believe there is actual meaning behind any string of words you manage to get out.

"Till" is completely valid synonym of until. "'Til" is an informal contraction (and was probably meant to be the actual word "till"). If you're gonna be aggressively prescriptive, at least pick an actual battlefield instead of attacking innocent folks.

Wikipedia may not be a good source for most academic or formal papers, but it is definitely a source for other purposes. I'd absolutely trust something I read on Wikipedia more than some other random website I haven't heard of, no matter how professional or serious it looks, and the structure and language of an encyclopedia is probably going to be better to inform a layperson than the original sources, assuming you actually pick out the right one and point to the right section.