What do you mean “what”? I don’t think I could have been any clearer.

And if you meant to reply to the other comment, they meant to write horseshoe theory.

Sorry, that part was not meant to imply you specifically want to reduce safety standards, just that if you want to have it be competitive on the energy market, you would have to do something about that, or subsidise it by an absurd amount.

But the point still stands, nuclear energy is expensive, and it’s not because of subsidies to other energy sources. Please don’t claim so next time.

I’m pretty sure it’s not subsidies, but safety standards. I’m not trying to pretend to understand Lazards “levelized cost of electricity”, and their graphs are seem to be off by 20 or I don’t read them correctly, but they are at least very clear that subsidies are taken out when they make their comparison. Nuclear is still the most expensive no matter how you slice it (except rooftop residential solar, but I think that gets around paying energy providers or something). Anyway, I’m more willing to trust them than the world nuclear association on if nuclear is price competitive.

I’ll grant you a better argument for next time: Nuclear is incredibly safe compared to other energy sources, but is uniquely held to a way higher safety standard than anything else. And reducing the cost of nuclear by reducing safety standards actually is unpopular, so politicians don’t do it and the cost keeps rising.

I’d still disagree on loosening safety restrictions, but at least that would be true, instead of blaming subsidies.

This meme was translated from mentalese.

Don’t claim some races are inferior to others, you are only encouraging them.

Are there not better means of renewable energy generation

Well, if you’re going to claim that, I’ll have you know that in our infinite wisdom to create an energy market, energy needs to be cheap to produce as well.

No current nuclear power plant where I live (cost seems to be rather location dependant) is creating cheap energy, they’re always more expensive than renewables. That’s why the investments in them has increased so much over the last few years while nuclear is just trudging along in the race to replace fossil fuels.

I find it extremely weird how we can all agree spreading such hateful generalisations is bad in any other context, but it’s A-Okay when you narrow it down to tourists. I get the hate for them, but their fellow citizens can’t help where they happened to be born either.

Anyway, him being from Israel was just a rumour, OP even changed the title since there was no evidence. If you are going to keep this comment up for still being true enough, at least keep in mind that this specific tourist does not contribute to the tally.

I think the woman was probably a “ladyboy” transgender.

Is there even anything to suggest that?

The academic definition does matter in an academic context, but outside of that, other definitions are used. Misandry does exist and is grounded in facts, because people can use misandry to mean bigotry against men. In fact, that is what people mean more often than not. Linguistic is a real science as well, you know?

Again, being a pedant about what it should mean isn’t helping anyone, least of all you.

It’s not so much a misunderstanding of concepts, it’s people using 2 different definitions.

You must know by now that misandry can both mean “systemic oppression of men” and “bigotry against men” - sorry, “unfairly being mean to men”, just as misogyny or racism can mean different things in a systemic and personal context.

People are complaining about bigotry, or “being meanly treated” if you want to imply dismissiveness, and the word they use for that is misandry/racism/misogyny - that these words imply systemic oppression in an academic context doesn’t matter, we are talking about the other context.

And if you think it should not have this other definition at all, because it makes it harder to talk about the more important systemic issue, or for another reason: don’t be a pedantic prescriptivist on these definitions, language is fluid.

Ghost Trick’s entire second half is filled with them, but you cannot describe them spoiler-free… “When he looks at you” is the best I can come up with.

Return of the Obra Dinn, when you first look up in Abigail’s death scene.

Because it’s hens and cows that are farmed for their products, veganism is a feminist issue.

Feminism is notoriously concerned with chromosomes rather than personhood. /s

Tja, Sprache verändert sich. In meiner Grundschulzeit hießen die auch noch nicht Schokoküsse und niemand, den ich kannte hatte sich am Originalbegriff gestört.

Es gibt genug Gründe, das Geschlechtsneutral zu formulieren, eben weil “Die in dieser Satzung genannten Personenbezeichnungen umfassen alle geschlechtlichen Formen” nicht ausreicht.

Interesting what’s written here, I actually saw it more often in some Discord server. As far as I know, there it is just for fun and/or homestuck nostalgia, without any deeper meaning behind it.

Just like calling X “twitter” or “the hellsite”, or annotating everything with parenthesis, or using or refusing to use emoji, there does not need to be more of a reason to do something with written language than “I like it that way”. How much stylisation you can inject into your writing before you stop being comprehensible is another question.

There is a time and place for everything, and this ain’t it.

Plague doctor in 2020.

Ich hätte ganz ohne Ahnung 🇱🇮 geschätzt.

Sind die’s nicht, weil “sind doch Schweizer, egal was die behaupten” oder liegt es daran, dass es monarchistische Schnösel sind?

Ich hätte ganz ohne Ahnung 🇱🇮 geschätzt.

Sind die’s nicht, weil “sind doch Schweizer, egal was die behaupten” oder liegt es daran, dass es monarchistische Schnösel sind?

“Third world” refers to countries not aligning themselves with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact during the cold war, not WW2.

Ich wäre davon ausgegangen, wir nutzen die Steuern, die durch die längere Arbeitserfahrung der freien Individuen entstehen, um die gesellschaftlich wichtigen Arbeitsstellen zu fördern und finanziell attraktiver zu machen.

Kommt mir sinnvoller vor, als diese Felder mit unterqualifizierten Zwangsarbeitern zu fluten, wodurch die Gehälter in diesen Branchen immer genau Mindestlohn entsprechen werden.