You also wouldn't say that a surface that could be dried by wiping wasn't wet if it had water on it, but claiming that any surface in contact with water is wet insofar as it is not water implies that.
From a while ago but i posted in the wrong sub. I'd never sworn in front of it or anything.
You'd probably think a super flashy car would make your estate agent less trustowrthy, but shitlords wouldn't.
There're a number definitions of racism that preclude non-whites from the ability to be racist. Some allow for them to be considered prejudiced. Some are expressed as formulas (priviledge+power or prejutice+power) with the key concept being power. I (relatively uninformedly) refer to these as structural definitions.
The question is as the title suggests, and if you're so inclined, please explain what you think should be made of a resolution in either direction. Is it fine if it is? Should be? Should it not? That sort of thing (and why if you've the time).
Would honestly prefer supporters of these definitions to respond though all are welcome; i'd be less likely to engage with your response if it reads like a shitpost in either case.
Sorry if this belongs elsewhere.
No, I don't think i've ever sworn at it.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has dropped its case against SpaceX, determining that the company falls under the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board (NMB), which oversees railroad and airline companies. This means SpaceX employees will have narrower protections for collective action compared to those under the NLRB.
