RFK is secretly a flu virus wearing a human suit.

Privileged college kids larping as radicals that will only protest in safe spaces and only protest against people that agree with them and/or aren't a threat to them. It's kind of like whatever the opposite of "fighting the power" is. I'm convinced that's why there's so much infighting on the college left: they'd rather hyperventilate about a minor transgression that fails the immaculate morality purity test for someone that 99% agrees with them in all other respects than actually take their politics to people who have real and serious disagreements with them.

Hint: they're usually only a few blocks from college campus. You know, the area you and your friends never go? Where the poor people live? That you supposedly care about?

Not all are like this, obviously, but I regularly interact with "campus activists" in organizing circles, and it's largely an exercise in self-obsessive circle jerking in my experience. It's incredibly difficult to convince them to do something that might actually take them out of their comfort zone. They'd rather yell at each other, yell at other privileged, harmless college students that disagree with them, or protest college administrators. As though college administrations are some great fascist force.

They're one level above high school principals, Olivia. Relax.

They count on the weak regulatory powers of nations to "force them" to blunt the worst effects of their industries. Unfettered, the negative effects of their business practices are likely to hasten a reckoning with the very visible and spectacular damage they would cause. Due to stakeholder obligations, corporations are more or less required to take advantage of the profits that can be made by mass deregulation, but they're also aware it might abruptly cause unrecoverable damage to their business.

Basically, they need governments to regulate them just enough that they aren't deeply and profoundly hated for what they do, can appear to be "responsible" corporate citizens, and can continue to make profits in the near- and long-term, but not so much that it actually meaningfully affects their bottom line. Arguably government regulations, which they basically write themselves through lobbying and other forms of political persuasion, are a critical part of their business model and PR strategy.

It's sort of like if someone regularly rides in the passenger seat (C-suite) of a super nice car (corporation) with an unstable, angry, and dangerous driver (profit-motive responsibility to stakeholders). The passenger likes that they get where they're going faster than everyone else, they ride in a dope car, they have a very comfortable commute, and they like how everyone is jealous of the car when they pass them.

That being said, the passenger doesn't want to die and doesn't want the car destroyed. But, since the driver is insane, it's easier to just always agree with the driver that "speed limits are stupid," "air bags are for pussies," "crumple zones are a Chinese conspiracy," and so on. They don't have to worry about it because the laws governing driving, the regulations governing car design, etc. keep them relatively safe. Sure, the driver pushes the limits and occasionally gets pulled over, but, ultimately, they wear their seatbelts, have airbags, crumple zones, and all the other standard, government regulated safety features of a modern, high-end car.

Then a new president comes in saying all the same things the driver has been saying and says they're going to remove all those "dumb" things like traffic laws, manufacturing guidelines/regulations, and safety features. Suddenly the passenger feels obligated to start trying to either disagree with, and hopefully stop, the president making those changes, or they'll have to disagree, and hopefully stop, the driver taking advantage of them being repealed, or they'll have to do nothing and have a profoundly more dangerous commute with a high chance of death.

Interestingly, research shows a surprising trend related to this topic: young adults today, on the whole, are engaging in less sexual activity than any generation for which we have data. Yet, this shift isn't equally distributed across genders—where young men (ages 18-25) once reported slightly higher rates of sexual activity than young women, the pattern has reversed. Now, young women report engaging in sex more frequently than their male counterparts, with the gender gap widening now to a degree that significantly favors women in this area.

The reasons for this shift are still under debate. Economic pressures, the influence of digital media, and evolving social norms are all posited as contributing factors. But the data does suggest (this is based on CDC and JAMA studies) that a smaller subset of men are experiencing a larger share of sexual activity, aligning with certain internet memes and narratives about “Chads” dominating the dating scene. Whether these cultural constructs, such as the "MRA" or "Chad" phenomenon, are reflective of or reactive to this social shift remains unclear. Nonetheless, they generally resonate with the timeline of the observed trends around sexual activity. I'll be curious to see how the trends indirectly the future of dating and sexual relationships among young adults.

But, all that aside, if more women choose to opt out of traditional dating or sexual encounters with men, more power to women. Coincidentally, it could begin to narrow or at least slow the widening gender gap in this area. I am unsure if that would be good, bad, or neutral. In general, a healthy sex life seems to be an important dimension of the human experience. I would imagine the fact that the overall trends are going down is probably a negative for the psychology of a generation, but I guess we'll see.

This age cohort also drinks less, has more eating disorders, smokes/vapes less, is more sleep deprived, parties less, is more risk-averse, has shorter attention spans, experiments with drugs less, is more (prescription) medicated, is more depressed, is more socially isolated, and is more anxious than previous generations at the same ages. Looking at research on Gen Z is pretty crazy. And it can be depressing sometimes, but it's a particularly unique age cohort. Scholars widely acknowledge Gen Z as being markedly different than previous youth generations.

I'm simply responding to the article and the OP. I've already noted I'm largely ignorant on the topic/school. The article notes the discrimination is largely against the Scottish and the working-class -- two separate categories they can but needn't overlap -- and OP's comment mentioned it's largely a problem of the English at Edinburgh.

My second comment was actually intended as a light-hearted joke in the vein of "always blame the English!" but I can see it really offended your sensibilities. Here's hoping you recover soon!

Nah, not really. I would encourage the university to make some generalizations about class background and nationality and become more prejudiced against the wealthy and the English and create a mandate to serve more of their underprivileged countrymen and women.

I would never vote for the Green Party after watching two decades of their utter disregard for political calculus while being both supercilious and patronizing about it. If the party's behavior wasn't enough, their supporters are utterly obnoxious, self-congratulatory egotists.

I fully intend to support nearly any candidate running against a green party candidate at the local and regional level, and will happily make political donations to any organization running ads and/or mobilizing on-the-ground efforts against the green party. The green party has been one long abysmal failure after Nader/LaDuke.

They certainly don't need my help to die, but I'll help dig the grave anyway.

Because the person who said those things and to whom I'm responding is the "Trump voter" I specifically referenced? In case the fact that I'm directly responding to their comment and they're the OP of this post didn't make it clear enough for you.

Remember how it took merrick garland two full years and an independently organized governmental January 6th committee forcing his hand before he pursued criminal charges against Trump? How investigations by the NYT and WaPo showed that, over a year onto Biden's presidency, Garland had ordered no investigations into Trump at all? Yeah.

That dude is singularly responsible for one of the biggest law enforcement failures in the history of the United States and an extreme dereliction of duty. What a coward. Like most cowards, he hoped if he did nothing and stayed quiet no one would notice him. Unfortunately, now anti-Trump people hate him for his failure to meaningfully prosecute and pro-Trump people hate him for attempting to prosecute in the first place.

This dude is the squirrel that runs across the street, then gets scared and tries to run back, then gets scared and tries to run across again, then gets scared and tries to run back... and then gets run over by the car.

Most people on Lemmy think online clout is a political cause.

Yes, people did precisely that in this case. Or do you speak for all trans people and trans allies? I didn't get the memo. You're literally doing the thing being criticized. I explained to you that they were pushed out for defending the terms female and male for biological sex in her field. Your response: "yeah, that's not what it was, it's because she's a crypto-conservative working for the IDF."

It's like, well. OK, but that's not what happened. Many people on the left have gone on fox news to defend positions. Do you just assume they too are all therefore secretly conservative? What a silly worldview to have.

Regardless, I'm not going to bicker with you, I don't want you hyperventilating again. I'll block you and make it easier for both of us. Good luck with your video games.

This goes to my theory that if you dig deep enough into any problem in the world, there's an English twat at the bottom of it.

I'll admit I'm an idiot, but isn't Edinburgh University like... the Scottish university and located in Scotland?? But it discriminates against Scots..? I'm so confused.

Buttigieg/AOC 2028. Never forget that despite looking like a choir boy, Mayor Pete is a bulldog. Love watching him regularly demolish frothing Republicans. AOC is great at/for a lot of things, but at the top of the ticket, she's got too many cheap, easy character weaknesses. Too young. Her voice. Her big-time speeches, like at the DNC, show she's an unpolished orator. No executive experience.

Other than her voice (I like it, but many people find it annoying), all of those flaws would go away if she serves as VP for 4-8 years.

If Newsom is the democrat's candidate, I will vote third party. Fuck that guy.

Trump voter believes in small government. Also that the state should be able to legally compel you to electronically track your children and that 11-year-olds shouldn't be able to walk around outside without constant surveillance and sides with parents being arrested for allowing it. Believes "some" parental freedom should be "allowed."

I just rolled my eyes so hard I gave myself a headache.

Roughly 70% of factors that have contributed to climate change can't be mitigated in less than 300-500+ years. And all major metrics indicate we are doing worse at mitigating the damage on that last 30% each year. 2023 was a record year for greenhouse gas emissions. 2024 is shaping up to be similar if not worse.

Ignoring most of the article, bringing up the fact that "Trump gained support from every racial group except white people, where he lost one percentage point when compared to 2020," is a real and damning statistic for the Democrats. I've been saying for some time that I continue to be amazed as democrats turn themselves into the party of suburban and urban white privilege.

In the case of Dr. Hooven -- the person being referenced here -- her usage of binary biological sex categories was why she eventually needed/was bureaucratically forced to retire from Harvard. She never had issue with using people's preferred pronouns or names. She taught a well-regarded course, "Hormones and Behavior," and was attacked, in my opinion, for going on Fox News to defend the usage of "female" and "male" as categories of biological sex in medical classes.

While she's a life-long Democrat, I suspect if she hadn't gone on Fox & Friends to defend the position, the blowback would have been less targeted and vicious.

That being said, Harris's piece is exponentially more troubling and offensive than anything Hooven ever did. In my estimation, it's misguided, short-sighted, and poorly conceived. Worse, it's largely wrong.

What are you even talking about? They're curating the communities and instances they engage with. That's literally one of the core functionalities of the fediverse.

"YOU'RE NOT ENGAGING WITH LITERALLY WHATEVER IS PUT IN FRONT OF YOU. MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP USING THE INTERNET!"

Omg I'm dying lol 🤣

Hey OP, I have a suggestion for someone to block... I'm going to block him as well.

Yeah, usually that really thick, bleach-white chowder is frowned at. Really traditional chowder only uses the starch from the potatoes and cream to thicken it, and it's more soup-like than the kind that's basically the consistency of soft-serve ice cream. Really traditional chowder would someotimes used crushed ship biscuits (hard tack) as a thickener, which is why some people use flour/roux these days. Hard tack is basically the progenitor of modern crackers, including the often served oyster crackers. I like a crusty sourdough myself. Better for the mop up work!

Rhode Island, a suburb of Boston (😁) has an interesting chowder that has a clear broth that is pretty good too. It's basically identical minus the heavy cream. Great for people that don't get along with lactose.

Also, pro tip, if you don't have fresh clams, get a bottle of clam juice to add to taste. Usually you steam the clams open and then take out the meat and chop them up for the chowder, and you use the steaming juice leftover to add more clam flavor, as desired. Bottle of clam juice does the same basic thing (without needing to strain out the grit).

Usually the best chowders aren't brilliant white. They're a little darker like yours and almost look a little "dirty," for lack of a better word. If someone served me a bowl of what you made, I would expect it probably will taste great just from the eye test.