I also liked (paraphrasing): "Can you think of any other candidates capable of beating trump?" Joe: "Yeah, at least 50 of them."
Don't moisten me, clump. Er....
I'm not sure I'm doing this right. Go ahead and moisten as you please. Er... or something.
Uhmmm... I'll see myself out.
m
You havent specified the language, so i wrote all of them in my newly created language where all words are written the same: "m"
No. Its a homograph. All words have different pronunciation and different meaning, so there are multiple genders
If multiple words are written the same in this language, you dont need to write them all individually. They are still pronounced separately
if I said
"here are two different things that are spelled the same: bats"
would I be correct? I'd argue no
I think it is fair to judge Biden by his record more than his accute gaffs. He's old af, so on a minute to minute basis, he's unable to keep a coherent thought. But if you look at what he does in a more macro sense, his administration has been brilliant. It's the entire "I'm smart in my head but I can't fully articulate it" situation. Basically he has solid philosophy, he just can't sell it anymore.
Frankly, if Biden didn't have to go into the public, he would be a great president for the next 4 years (with the support he has). Harris will be sharper in public, and I think she will take the Biden positions one step further.
Ultimately to win elections, Democrats need to be better story tellers. They keep pulling up statistics and data, but they need to create a more visceral message. The GOP fear monger with stories of "an immigrant invasion", but Dems have yet to create a blockbuster "women dying of lack of abortion access" story. I mean those stories are out there, they just need better messengers.
I might even buy that, if there wasn't a really good case for calling him 'genocide joe'.
also, they need to start treating fascists like they treat the left. you know, if they want to win elections. I bet they could even win some votes FROM the left, if they made some compromises.
you're right. the elections they win but just let the fascists take have historically been a bigger problem, and a bigger off-ramp to 'bad timeline' territory. imagine having had a wonky nerd who cared about the climate as president for the first 8 years of this century.
Telling me stories isn't going to impress me with the party that's done very little in the last 20 years to make life better for the average American, even when they had Congress and the White House.
I want to know what's going to be different this time. I want to know that the Democrats are actually going to pass legislation to make things better in the medium run and in the long run. And we've seen some good ideas. The idea to reform the Supreme Court, that's a good one. I want to see more ideas like that, and I want to see centrist Democrats being pressured into publicly endorsing them.
I want Democrats to refuse to take money from crypto billionaires. I want Democrats to tell all of us how they're going to stand up against monopolies. I want Democrats to risk angering the large corporations that dominate US politics, because I know that's the only way that life will get better for the average American.
Of course you can't always get what you want. So if the Democrats want to tell stories better, I guess that's better than nothing, but don't expect me to respect them.
I'm pretty tired but about the legislation
https://about.bgov.com/brief/balance-of-power-republican-majority-in-the-house/#what
https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made
It would take more democrats then is currently available
Off the top of my head - male, female and nonbinary meet the criteria of "at least three" and are probably the most well known. But I imagine a straightforward answer like that would not have satisfied some right wing mouthpiece and they would then intentionally try to conflate sex with gender to make Biden look bad when they take it out of context on the evening news (not that proper context would have mattered to the people watching it anyway).
Since gender is a social construct, I'd say there are as many as we as a society construct. And if you grow up tomorrow and feel like you, as a part of this society doesn't see yourself in the ones we already constructed, you just construct a new one.
So I'd sa, how many genders there are is fluid. But absolutely AT LEAST 3.
I have a son that loves ballet. He's 3 and loves to dance. I could beat him, because ballet is arbitrarily "girly, " or I could encourage him to do things he loves.
I am much more interested in him being a kind, well-rounded person than I am interested in him being someone else's stereotype of a man.
I kind of still dislike some of the even more nuanced discussion around gender because it's goal can still be to categorize. More precisely, but still occasionally hurtful. I would love for everyone to be happy as they are, undefined by anyone but themselves. I've known people who came through so many awful experiences, and some found comfort in the group acceptance of a new gender definition, but the ones I know who are happiest eventually shrug that off entirely and find full self-acceptance. It's so hard to do, and not everyone can, but gender acceptance is only a stepping stone in the path to self-acceptance.
Male dancers are fucken ripped.
Speaking from (my brothers experience) boys who dance and are good, get the girls (if they are into girls). Fuck the ones who judge, I have three boys, let him enjoy what he likes.
I've been to swing dance classes in a few cities. The instructors are usually not professionals, and still fit the bill.
Dancers be hot.
male dance kid here - ballroom or other partner dance is actually a good start for the quite young as it's more about footwork and you have a partner to help guide you.
I moved into jazz/modern around 8-10 years old.
Also, when they're a little older and ready for it, dance kids fuck. It's like theater for fit people.
He’s not an expert, but he’s not a bigot. He knows about men and women and he knows that some people identify as neither, so he knows there are at least three genders, but there could be more than one “third” option, so he doesn’t want to cap it at three.
I don’t know if you meant you didn’t get the funny part or the meaning itself. I think it’s funny because it’s a question that trips up people regularly when British tabloids accost politicians with it. Biden didn’t really answer completely, but he cut through the bull shit pretty cleanly.
Intersex? The person you enter during sex is generally the "bottom"
In a traditional heterosexual scenario, this would be the woman.
Throw in homosexuality and a Kleinfelter or two and who knows!
I agree with what I think you're saying here: The joke is more awkward and potentially offensive than it is funny.
Thanks for being cool about it. You didn't seem malicious so I was trying not to be too much of an asshole. Sorry for being snarky, I was arguing with some transphobes at the time and got a bit edgy 😛
And these 2 are purposefully used interchangeably by right wing dipshits.
People like you are almost as big a part of the problem as the right wing weirdos. You will gladly eat your own, for virtue points.
The notion that even biological sex is broader than 'the binary' we where brought up with, is mind boggling. Untill a decade? Ago this was never discussed beyond nice circles (medical world, intersex people themselves).
An important next step is to make sure people don't just write intersex off as a disease or malformation. As this is the gateway to actually blowing open the whole gender conversation.
I know they are used interchangeably on purpose oftentimes, that’s why I clarified. Some people might only know as much. My point wasn’t to invalidate intersex people but to say that intersex isn’t „the third gender“ but, if anything, „the third sex“ (and yes, I know intersex ppl aren’t a homogeneous group and there are differences). Intersex people can come in a variety of genders, as do afab and amab ppl because gender and sex aren’t the same. How is stating that a problem?