Lurker > Kenri

I mean, the initial argument I made was "sex is a social construct", because of the broader point that most (all?) systems of classification are social constructs. Nature doesn't classify; humans classify. Beyond that, what I said was that classifying an individual as male or female (as in on a form of ID) is useless, because given the way that classification happens and the way our society treats sex, it tells you absolutely nothing about them. Not their chromosomes, not their genitalia, not their gender, nothing.

The "same and different are arbitrary" is part of all that, sort of, but came from this whole other discussion and frankly, I don't care anymore. Yes, I guarantee you could create a system of classification that would make birds into snakes if you really wanted to. Does this answer your current question?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

You literally told me "Even if birds aren't reptiles, the difference is arbitrary."

My dude I am seriously done with this argument and have nothing more to add, but if you're gonna keep claiming I said whatever, you should quote the actual posts where I said it instead of paraphrasing what you think my argument is, cuz you've already admitted multiple times that you don't know what I'm arguing.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Regardless of which side we're on, here, can we agree that Kenri's argument of "The difference between birds and other reptiles is arbitrary, just like the difference between XX and XY is arbitrary" is a horrible argument?

That's definitely a horrible argument but I don't think I ever said anything even close to that, so.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Is there any way we can track down the timecube guy and put him on TV to compete with Alex Jones
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

when did i say that

other than rhetorically, maybe?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I'm saying that the point at which "same" becomes "different" is arbitrary and decided on by people.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Because classifying two things that aren't the same as being the same shouldn't be done...?

We do that all the time if they're same "enough" though. That's like... what classification is.


MariaTaylor posted...

if you refuse to call XX and XY as male and female, it doesn't change the fact that XX and XY are genetically distinct

I don't claim that they aren't?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

But when you say the distinction between birds and reptiles is arbitrary, and "the main distinguishing characteristic is if they have feathers or not," it kinda gets tough to find that point. >_>

Yeah well we've established I was uninformed about the latter but I'd still say it's arbitrary. What changes about the world if we classify them as one or the other?


Paratroopa1 posted...

I didn't know there was already a huge discussion about this

Sorry if that came out of nowhere btw, I was more using your post as a jumping off point than replying to you directly.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Yeah that's what I meant - I feel like even if we reached a point where humankind was capable of asexual reproduction, we could create new sexes, and generally were capable of radically broadening what the definition of 'humanity' is like, sex would still be an influence on every culture. And that's very very far away (minimum 30-50 years if we're being super duper optimistic, probably considerably more), so it just makes more sense to emphasize that gender identity =/= sex and that gender is more important everywhere outside of medicine, IMO.

Sure. But you also have to understand that sex and gender are conflated on a huge scale every single day, so until they become distinct societally, the average person is going to treat their sex as equivalent to their gender (because we've already agreed that gender is more important).
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

MariaTaylor posted...

especially when it's an issue of classification like this. the people who design the system are the ones who choose how to classify things. in that sense there is less of an objective right answer to find, and it's more based on what we determine to classify things as. it requires collective agreement.

i spent like 100 posts trying to say this so i hope it was just me being bad at explaining it and that you're not about to get drawn into a huge argument over it
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Okay that's slightly different from what I thought you were claiming. If you're just saying "some conception of sex shapes every culture in some way" then I don't think there's a counter-example to disprove that, even historically.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Paratroopa1 posted...

I was actually really annoyed because in a marine biology class I took, my teacher told me that I should make a note that birds (was doing a report on seabirds) are reptiles, and I was like "I'm not sure it's actually that simple?" and she was like "no, they are"

This is pretty much what my experience has been too (leading to my "birds are basically reptiles" comment that presumably inspired this topic).

I'll own up that I'm definitely not informed enough on this topic to back that up and probably should have looked into the debate more instead of assuming the info I had heard before was the consensus. Whoops!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

In a certain sense "sex as a biological fact" is only like 50 years old, mainly coming about as a response to the increased use of "gender" as a distinct thing from sex. So like, in the 1950s we had terms like "sex change" and "transexual" that implied biological sex was pretty mutable! (Not that we don't still have those terms but they're fairly out of date now.)

This is simplified but if you're gonna call it a "bedrock of human culture" I'd want some scholarship to back that up.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Gatarix posted...

I think Kenri's trying to say that sexual characteristics (i.e. biological facts) are so intertwined with societal expectations, stereotypes, etc. that it's really hard to separate them out. Like as soon as you call someone a "man" you've invoked/referenced a whole lot of social construct baggage, even if you say "No I didn't mean any of that, I just meant the literal biological fact."

the rest is just semantics

imo

This is definitely part of what I was saying yeah. When I mentioned "implications we draw from sex" this was the kind of thing I was getting at.


SantaRPidgey posted...

So sex is basically like Sand and Silt. You can go to a beach and recognize sand or go to a river and recognize silt, but there's no clear defined line between them. There's no specific weight or grain size where sand becomes silt. This isn't really a problem 99% of the time because most people think they can tell the difference between the two.

And this is basically the other half.


SmartMuffin posted...

The type of people who look at a bird and a reptile and say "well, that's basically the same thing" are the same types of people who look at a penis and a vagina and say "well, that's basically the same thing"

I mean, it depends how you want to define things, which is kind of my point -- but I was specifically talking about taxonomy, and by the currently accepted taxonomy (AFAIK)*, birds and reptiles are all contained within Sauropsida, and the distinguishing characteristic between the two is basically "do they have feathers y/n". Like birds are the closest relatives of crocodilians; it's not like we're comparing plankton and gorillas.

That said, you can basically make a vagina out of an inverted penis and there are definitely cases of penis/clitoris confusion (especially in newborn infants) so *shrug*

*actually this might just be something some people are pushing for, idk, if there are any taxonomists on the up-and-up reading this topic I'd be interested in hearing which one they work with
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

BowserCuffs posted...

I'm gonna be honest, if someone gets their life ruined because they publicly and proudly proclaim their hatred for entire groups of people based on race and conspiracy theories, that's on them, not on the people listening.

yes but what about our first amendment guarantee to freedom from consequences of our own stupid, stupid actions??
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Wanglicious posted...

(the tangent isn't really that surprising - even though it may be understood as wrong, hot naked chicks are still hot naked chicks. that goes across every category of people, regardless of politics.)

"may be understood as wrong" sounds a little understated coming from the guy on a 300 post crusade about how a news agency can't use the name of a 40-year-old racist in an article about him without it being a human rights violation
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, I'm sorry, but I lost it at "Birds are just reptiles, maaaaan! It's society keeping them apart!"

i think most people are catching up on this one actually

lots of people are still surprised when you tell 'em fish is kind of an arbitrary category though
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

the part where micropenises still function like penises?

that's uh kind of questionable i think but then i'm not an expert on micropenises

man there's probably a joke to be made there but i can't think of one that isn't a self-burn
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

LapisLazuli posted...

They should have released the guy's name to begin with!

don't worry, i'm sure that's the lesson they're learning from this nonsense
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Lopen posted...

Are you sure you're not talking about the words themselves? It really sounds like you are.

Did nature say "A is a B but C isn't a B" or did humans?

there, is it divorced from the words themselves enough yet?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Then everything is a social construct

we've reached critical foucault
abort abort


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "Trees are a social construct," me explaining general characteristics of trees and how you can tell them from bushes even if there are exceptions, and you saying "Yes, but because YOU are the one who made the distinction between trees and bushes, trees are a social construct."

Sort of, yeah. I already used the species example. I don't know anything about trees but I know our conceptions of, like, fish and birds are pretty arbitrary (fish don't really exist as a group; birds are basically just reptiles). Wouldn't surprise me if the distinction between trees and shrubs was equally arbitrary. But I wouldn't call "trees" a social construct, I'd call our system of taxonomy a social construct (and already have in this very topic).


Lopen posted...

I'm saying the decisions and revisions by humans aren't just arbitrary and are based on patterns that exist in nature, so if you're making a point it really can only be about the word itself, because everything else about the categorization is in fact from nature, not from man.

In what way? What part of nature said "a micropenis is a penis but a clitoris is something different"? Or did humans decide that?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Biological factors and characteristics exist. Sex as a system of classifying them is a social construct. I've been consistent about this the whole time, so...
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Second point, I responded because you made a post about how biological sex is a social construct and a useless classification, which it isn't.

You seem to only disagree with the latter!


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Yeah, everyone's biology is completely unique. But how stupid would it be if you went to the doctor because it hurts when you pee and they just went "sorry but since everyone's different I guess I don't know what's wrong!"

I mean, this happens all the time anyway? I can't imagine it would be any worse if they had better, but less concise, information.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

This isn't true, because sexual reproduction exists in nature. What we're doing is looking at physical traits that are related to that and making an educated guess. It's not always right, but it's not arbitrary, either, and it works much more often than a simple majority of the time. I don't really follow your endangered animals comparison because this seems based on something more tangible to me.

Sexual reproduction exists in nature and is detached from sex as we usually define it. But really, I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing over at this point if you're admitting that it's about "we (humans) making an educated guess".

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

We still use the binary because it's useful and works extremely often, and even helps us to define the abnormalities!

The idea of the abnormal is also a social construction based on what society has decided is normal :x

(That isn't really relevant I'm just snarking because I don't have anything to add here anymore.)

Lopen posted...

There's a difference between "manmade classification" and "completely arbitrary classification" which I think is where your disconnect is. Just because nature didn't 'create' the word doesn't mean it's not useful or describing something that tends to occur in nature. Humans decide that certain things relate to sex because the correlation of those certain things to the sex is too high to just be written off as coincidence without being called a clown.

Like you can say endangered/extinct are terms made by man and not nature, which is true, but it also doesn't mean they're completely arbitrary and randomly chosen. Nature didn't say "hey you need to call this extinct cause I really like that word" but it's also not the case that we just classify flies as extinct and expect them to disappear overnight cause we put that label on em. The label has a pretty well defined meaning-- just because a panda doesn't personally identify as endangered doesn't mean he's experiencing a population shift overnight.

Not talking about the word itself, I'm talking about the whole system being created by society, maintained by human decisions, subject to revision by humans, etc. It definitely seems like you agree with this based on how you're talking about it, so...
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

What do you mean by "nature doesn't care?" Because that doesn't seem true to me. Sex confers certain biological characteristics, so what is that if it's not nature "caring?"

Lots of things beyond sex confer certain biological characteristics too. But it's humans who decide that certain things relate to sex, others don't, and then generalize and classify based on that.

Like I know this is kind of abstract but it's not THAT complicated of a thing, so maybe I'm explaining it wrong? To use a more extreme example: we have the whole classification system for how endangered animals are instead of trying to track exact numbers of everything. So there's least concern/vulnerable/endangered/extinct (and a couple others but I'm simplifying). And that's all well and good but humans picked those categories, the threshholds to them, and assigned animals to each based on our observations. Capital-N Nature did not descend from the heavens and say "lo and pandas shall be considered endangered".

And as with sex, actually things are a little more complicated, because things can snowball from least concern to extinct fairly easily, or something that's classified as extinct might show up in a Chinese fish market or something.


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I understand the chromosome complaint because it frustrates me every time I see it, too. It's a lot more complicated than that and people are trying to oversimplify the science to fuel their agenda. But, here's the thing, these sex chromosome disorders like XXY, X0, or XYY, also have unique biological consequences. They are not an argument against biological sex being real, they are an argument against the binary. The reason we continue to use the binary is because as far as we can tell, these disorders affect 5% or less of the population, and that's being extremely generous. So it's way more useful to specifically classify things when they occur.

I think I pretty much agree with this -- but usually chromosomes aren't the ONLY thing used to define sex, so if the binary breaks down because of e.g. XYY chromosomes, it should break down for lots of other possibilities too. And then we get into the (probably fairly useless) "there are 400 billion sexes" school of thought.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Coming at it from the patients' viewpoint is taking the wrong perspective, I feel.

Well that's the perspective you're always going to get information from, so it's worth considering.

Like come on, you're saying:

KanzarisKelshen posted...

I just think the medical classification needs to be as clear as possible and leave no room for errors of interpretation

But also that if a form says F that gives you a bunch of relevant information that is clear as possible and leaves no room for errors of interpretation? Tell me -- what does an F on a form tell you 100% of the time?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

So basically, what you're saying is that the 'sex' line that says 'male/female' in a medical report should be replaced with 'Genitals: Vagina/Penis'?

No? I think it's not useful to have on a form at all unless you detail every (relevant) sexual characteristic, and if you do that you might as well do it for stuff like both kidneys too.

Like it's exactly the kind of issues you bring up that already exist under the current system! That's why I say it's not very useful for individuals!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Bold is mine because this is important. You say the rule (rule system) 'might be less than useful'. I'm saying 'prove it'. You've said you can't. So basically, what I am saying as a follow-up is you should recant your statement until you have an argument worth entertaining, because you look like a fool arguing in favor of something you don't even understand. >_>

Yeah it's not that useful when applied to a specific person. If you're a doctor for instance, instead of asking "Are you female?" (more likely it would be "Are you a woman?" or just assuming without asking at all but lol) you can just ask "Do you have a vagina?" (or whatever other body part you're concerned about). It gives you more information and is less confusing for an admittedly small number of patients.

I'm not saying "overturn the whole system! add 400 billion sexes!" You'll have to read some Hirschfeld to get that.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

i'm not arguing whatever the fuck you're talking about but keep on knockin' those strawmen down, buddy!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

The reason we discern between two sexes isn't 'because' as you seem to think it is. It's because of efficiency.

I don't care the reason, I care the actor. And the actor is people. It's a man-made system.


KanzarisKelshen posted...

What I'm interested in is an argument in favor of having more sexes (with no changes in the human condition) being more efficient than the current system in use. Do you have one?

I don't even care about this at all so I guess not? If you hum a few bars I can fake it.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

there are complex sympathy calculations going on here

Wow you should try my system instead, it's called "I feel good when I hurt people I don't like" and it works perfectly with no messy math
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

This argument is unbelievably silly. Yes, you can argue every single classification system (time, mathematics, sex, whatever) is a human invention and thus arbitrary. But this doesn't mean it's not useful. We don't have eleven billion sexes because such precise distinction misses the point of a classification system, which is to sort by similarity, as opposed to exactitude. Fundamentally, classifying human beings by sex is effective, because we can create discern (correct) patterns off this classification system - for example, that certain diseases afflict members of one sex more severely than the other, more commonly, or not at all. Trying to differentiate sexes further into many more categories until we actually find a statistically significant deviation (for example, a third sex that is three feet smaller than the average human female on average, possesses reproductive capabilities through contact, considerably tougher skin, whatever you want to go with) is entirely useless because classification systems help create rules you can use to simplify and automate procedures. A rule system constructed entirely out of exceptions is both the height of pedantry and singularly useless.

Or, to reduce the above monster of a paragraph to a single, pointed question: Medically speaking, dividing human beings into two sexes has provided us with efficient diagnosis methods. What benefit does separating into more specific categories provide over the two-category system? Because rule systems exist because they work, and if not they get replaced. Why would binary sexual classification merit replacement at this point in time?

all of this sounds like "yeah it's a social construction but it usually works" and I pretty much agree with that.

i don't think it belongs on birth certificates but doctors don't read those anyway
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

what's the difference between the "way we classify them and the implications we draw" regarding sexual characteristics and the concept of gender?

A lot. The way we classify sex is a super simplified way of doing it that doesn't capture nature's complexity. We, as humans, created this two-sex model and said "this is the genitalia of this sex, these are the chromosomes of this sex, etc". That model doesn't exist in nature; it was created by humans to reflect, however simplistically, what we saw. But because it's a human-created thing, not every possibility really fits into it. It's sort of like the species model. What is a species? Who knows, really. We've got a model that sort of works and then occasionally an animal will break the rules, or we'll realize that a thing we thought was a separate species isn't, or whatever. The idea of "species" as a way of classification is a human invention, even though you could say that obviously different species do exist. "Sex" as a method of classification is a human invention. Nature doesn't sort stuff that way.

So that's one part. The implications are more about how sex is just Gender Episode 2. The evidence for this is in language (you could say you're a "firefighter who is a woman" or a "female firefighter" and these are seen as synonymous even though one uses gender language and the other uses sex language). You can see it in, yes, forms of ID like this topic is about -- if someone checks your driver's license and sees an M, they're going to assume they can politely refer to you as "sir", or in other words that sex implies gender. Then there's the whole issue regarding trans people of some sort of "true" or "inner" sex, where even after someone's sexual characteristics have changed (i.e. their genitalia is different, their hormones are different, etc) a good portion of the populace will still try to insist that their "real" sex is whatever they were born as. That's absolutely socially constructed; it's not like you can cut someone open and remove their "real sex". And then there's the chromosome issue, which people like to fall back on because it's largely immutable, ignoring that 99.9% of people don't REALLY know their own chromosomes, much less anyone else's, so how could it possibly inform gender? Or even sex, as in sex how it's listed on birth certificates, which is apparently detached from chromosomal sex because of this very issue?

(The average person, incidentally, doesn't go that far with any of this. They just say "dick is boy, vag is girl" and assume that works for sex and gender both. So even before all of this, to the average person sex is already gender which is already a social construction.)

I'm not the best person to explain all of this (there are much better explanations out there that go into biology and stuff more because they have more expertise there than I do), but I think that's a good starting point? Hopefully.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

ExThaNemesis posted...

Kenri posted...

i will settle for murder at minimum in all accounts

the sad thing is I'm not even 100% that you're joking

i am an enigma
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

ExThaNemesis posted...

So I ask you what I asked him, what's your threshold for the violence that should befall the "aggressor"?

Should he just be punched a-la Richard Spencer? Should he be hospitalized? Disabled? Killed? What do you think?

While you're at it, what level of violence are you okay with happening to Richard Spencer whenever he shows his mug in public?

i will settle for murder at minimum in all accounts
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

ExThaNemesis posted...

If you can't figure out how that's victim blaming then I guess you're not smart enough to be part of the conversation anymore.

it's not victim blaming because if you're shouting racial slurs you're an aggressor, not a victim

(LtM's post was dumb but this is even dumber; both of y'all should stop)
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Sounds like your cops need law and order.

we have the same cops and they need jail cells is what they need
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Ok lets do a cop analogy.

A teenager in his house with his friends is singing fuck tha police when his friend puts him over the loud speaker or whatever. Cop going by stops and starts banging on the door. The teen refuses to answer because he is scared but begins pleading profusely that he is scared and will do whatever the cop wants if he won't make a big deal about it. The cop says well you showed remorse, apologized for your behavior to me, and changed your behavior by no longer singing that song anymore.

However, if I hear you deviating from that change of behavior I am arresting you.

this sounds 100% like a thing a cop would actually do

and then the conservatives on this board would praise the cop's "restraint" in not shooting the teenager 37 times
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Me, a person who has never read a newspaper before in my life: how dare they give out the name of a PRIVATE CITIZEN
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Let me make a bad example to illustrate the point.

man, if there's one thing bad examples are good for, it's illustrating your point!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

ZaziGuado posted...

You literally just explained the difference between sex and gender and why sex is predetermined and gender is socially determined.

1) no i didn't

but 2) the common-use conflation of sex and gender is a big part of why i say sex is a social construct even if you believe in it as a useful system of classification
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

charmander6000 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Why is sex non-binary?

Incorrect meiosis, defective genes, etc...

These sound like exceptions to the rule...doesn't mean there's not a rule.

If the exception is more common than the disease you're checking for, it seems like the rule might be less than useful.


StealThisSheen posted...

Kenri posted...

plenty of leftists recognize that sex is a social construct, or at least not a binary and fairly useless as a classification

Are you saying sex and gender are both social constructs?

Yep. In kinda different ways though. Obviously sexual characteristics exist, but the way we classify them and the implications we draw from that classification are social constructions.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

scarletspeed7 posted...

It's the medical field's business to track that in case of any health-related emergencies that could involve penises and vaginas. Unless you would like to be treated improperly. "Doesn't say male, no need to check for testicular cancer."

Kenri posted...

also this is legitimately an A+++ idea aside from the practical issues it would cause

The practical issues are why it exists in the first place. No one actually cares where you choose to live.

You can be treated improperly either way cuz sex isn't actually a binary like it says on ID. Might as well just force doctors to actually ask if you have a certain body part before ordering tests on it.

Also if you're seriously claiming that no one cares who lives in which country... uh, idk what to tell you other than that isn't, and never has been, true.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Would you progressives be happier if the certificate said penis/vagina instead of male/female?

this is essentially what it already says (see all the "but it says sex, not gender!" people) so no, it doesn't change the fact that it's none of the government's business to track that
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SmartMuffin posted...

Leftists: Gender and sex are two different things! We are not disputing that biological sex is a real thing that actually exists.

i feel like you're far more likely to get this from the center and right than the left

plenty of leftists recognize that sex is a social construct, or at least not a binary and fairly useless as a classification


MZero11 posted...

don't give them citizenship either just let them be stateless until they decide where they want to live

also this is legitimately an A+++ idea aside from the practical issues it would cause
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

There's really no reason for sex to be listed on official documents anyway so good on them.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

They were pledging allegiance to the flag; the government doesn't need to defeat militias like this because it's tricked them into thinking they're on the same side.

(As long as some rich white male fucktard is in office.)
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Shaduln posted...

Wait, where in the world do you only pay $5 for health insurance?

tbf that's about what I paid two years ago

under Obamacare
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

When did we become the country who does not want to earn shit and receive it anyways?

1776
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I guess. I don't think importance factors in at all though, really. The fact is that these people are operating out of the present, so everything has to be compared to the present. It's not an academic exercise that asks in what ways the Bronze Age and Stone Age are different -- we're talking about the introduction of actual policy here, which always means change 100% of the time.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.