The idea that Mao had regressive views on women should not be shocking in the slightest. Modern women's rights are really really recent developments across the world.

One shocking fact I like to bring up is that women weren't even allowed to own their bank accounts till like the 70s/80s. My mom brings that one up when talking about how much things have changed since her childhood.

But it's also not particularly relevant. People don't listen to Mao for his views on women's rights. It's the same way we don't dismiss electricity just because the society back then owned slaves.

It's an opinion article, those always have takes that are much different then the mainstream. For better (like the one here) or for worse (pretty much all of NYTs).

Carnist Catch 22, if it hits the beans then they'll be destroyed and you'll have to eat the pig to survive.

Why would an anti LGBT group want lots of support from LGBT+ members? Seems like an easy way to fall apart once you let the mask slip and you won't have any backup because all the other anti LGBT people would have left.

A lot of this reporting is a big misunderstanding of statistics.

As the study says

About 45% of the population had zero beef consumption on any given day, whereas the 12% of disproportionate beef consumers accounted for 50% of the total beef consumed

Now just as a thought experiment, do you think that almost half of the US never eats any beef? No, of course not. But on any given day? Sure, quite possible. People's diets vary.

A randomly selected person might have a McDonald's hamburger for lunch and a steak for dinner and be part of the 12% on the first day but then eat mushroom ravioli for lunch and pizza for dinner on the second day and be part of the 45%.

And there might be certain demographics that are more likely to make up that 12% on a given day but that doesn't mean there's a particular nonchanging group of high consumers.

I'm not going to dig into the study here but just as an example, let's say Dog Breed X is 1.5 times more likely to bark than Dog Breed Y is. You can't hear a dog bark and say "Ah it must be Breed X then!", you can only say "Ah, it's more likely from Breed X than Breed Y".

I think that way about evolution sometimes. It's blitheringly obvious when you consider the two points

1. There is a difference between parent and offspring and yet they also inherit traits
2. Differences add up

Both are easily observable in the natural world. The first one can be seen with babies "oh you have your mother's eyes" while also the baby not literally being the mom. The second one is used by walking where we cross a large distance one step at a time.

And all you need is those two principles to come to the conclusion that the small yet inheritable differences between offspring will add up over a long period of time. The question to be asked isn't if it will happen but rather just what traits it happens to.

And yet, it took humanity (and for many people still they refuse) millennial to grasp it. I'm looking at the process as so simple only from the lens of someone born after it was figured out.

How can there be civilians at all if mandatory conscription is a thing? Every civilian is a potential soldier in Israel. I feel bad for the people who were just born into the world without making any of these decisions and got hurt but they were, whether they like it or not, going to be used as a tool of terror by the Israeli state.

You can't use your civilians as weapons and then fall back and claim they're not a threat.

If Israel ends the mandatory conscription, and lets the civilians stay civilians, I might have more outrage.

The government literally had/has a program to give out cheap smart phones, tablets and laptops to poor people during Covid.

The idea of this technology being inaccessible to those in poverty is like 20 years out of date.

I was told landlords did a lot of work to earn their money? If he's clearly well enough to do such intense labor like owning property then he must be in good mental condition.

This sub is probably mostly cops and maybe some law students.

From what I remember almost all of the moderation team are cops yeah.

I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to conclude that any decent approach to the first will also include the second. That shit is literally designed to be addictive, even the best teachers are gonna struggle to compete.

The thing about FDC is that there are certainly people on social media who misunderstand things like autism and are likely diagnosing themselves incorrectly. But there's a reason why pretty much all their focus is on TikTok, it's because they're children! Of course a 12-year-old on tiktok doesn't have a deep understanding of what autism symptoms looks like. And yes that 10 year old probably doesn't have DID when they say they're a Danganronpa character but you know what they do have? An imagination.

At best they're literally making fun of children having fun playing and not perfectly understanding the world and at worst are making fun of children going through serious struggles trying to find an answer for themselves.

And that's not even to mention the FDC very rarely has an understanding of what these disabilities look like either. Like sensory processing issues is well known to have high comorbidity with autism and yet saying you dont like loud noises gets the response of "no one likes them, you're not special". But if no one likes them then why do people go to the movies? Why are concerts a thing?

It's a horrible sub through and through that pretends to be righteous by "correcting misinformation" but in reality is just laughing at and insulting kids.