"Retarded" can't be a slur because it can be used to describe slowed/inhibited things that aren't people. "Retard" is a slur derived from the adjective "Retarded". Unlike the F-slur, N-word, and all the other colorful terms hateful people use to show people that they aren't welcome on the basis of their identity, retarded has OTHER MEANINGS, and it is so much more apt a word than "Dumb" or "Slow" in so many contexts that it's frankly (choose your adjective here) that we should have to walk on eggshells around it.
Expressing disrespect for a person for things outside their control is cowardly and close-minded. We should censor people who try to co-opt the group they are speaking in to express their prejudice. But extending the censorship of a slur to its root word, even for innocuous contexts, is an overreach of the social policing of our language. It sets a bad example, since ANY WORD can be made to be an insult to someone if used that way, and we set a bad cultural precedent by doing this for "retarded"
I understand that there's no council that decides what is or isn't acceptable to say, but I really wish people would think about this with a little more nuance than just "R-word detected, speaker shall be shunned" without considering the context. The way I see it, refusal to consider context is a redirection of the same kind of prejudiced thinking that makes slurs bad. But it's being applied to a person's speech rather than their identity, so it's not as bad a thing to do.
but you have to pay the full amount anyway and go through insurance because you have a deductible that needs to be met because your annual physical isn't supposed to happen until November when you get time off around Thanksgiving but you don't want to have to pay the full non-insured price of this and not count it to your deductible when you KNOW that you'll have to pay the full cost of that primary care visit and your 45-year-old colonoscopy coming up and everything is terrible.
Tastes worse than junk food. Need to chew forever to get the number of calories required to survive. No dopamine hit for eating a bite of radish. More expensive than frozen/canned alternatives.
Correct, but other laws still prohibit distribution to minors, and smoking near the building. So all it allows is keeping them on your person or with your belongings to eventually be consumed elsewhere. Doing anything with them that could be harmful to children would still be illegal.
People can be ethnically Jewish or religiously Jewish and they are separate identities. Historically, religiously jewish people tended to only marry other religiously jewish people, leading to the formation of a jewish ethnicity over time. For many, these identities are closely intertwined, for others they have both but view them separately. And for many others still, they only fit into one category or the other.
Irish, in contrast, is only an ethnicity but not a religion. (Unless you count certain sects of Celtic Paganism, but that's usually not what people mean)
If one parent is predominantly of Jewish heritage and the other of Irish heritage, then their child might identify as half-jewish-half-irish.
Genetically speaking, they are likely less than 50% of each because that would imply that each parent was completely and totally 100% their respective ethnicity genetically, which is (if possible) very very unlikely and realistically not 100% strictly defined.
People like to categorize things, including categories. For some, a part of their identity is based on the ethnic categories they fit themselves into, and some group these categories under one subsection of their identity, and assign weights to the different components of that category.
I love the funny things our pattern seeking brains do in order to quantify the unquantifiable and to better establish a sense of belonging and self in this amorphous and crazy society we're all a part of. What's really great is that none of what I've said is even universally true. It's just (from my observation) the most common way I've seen all these categories combined. If you disagree, you're completely free to do so, and neither of us are wrong until we start using numbers and statistics in our argument
While losing money from people who didn't buy frames manufactured by them, yes. That's the point of open source, to let the community have ownership of the design and to make your business model less reliant on intellectual property.
Not to mention that switching to lighter weights after reaching failure on heavier ones lets you squeeze out a few extra reps that deepen the failure and build more muscle
Your comment to correct it and your comment to point out that the error is baiting corrections give this post the exact same amount of engagement, on a site where engagement means nothing because posting doesn't get you ad revenue.
And before that, "idiot", and before that, "dumb"