That's great. Since when and does everybody take psych 101?
And just to give a wider perspective (regardless of her origins), not every language makes the distinction and some up until recently did not. Look at the translations on (wiktionary). Many of them are transliterations of the English word. Which is not a surprise since the concept of gender is quite recent (1950-1960s) and was most likely very US-centric.
Unless they are huge and ultra-wide, I don't see the point. They don't add anything at small sizes except a certain aesthetic. At large sizes, it's a quality of life improvement as things on the edges are closer than with flat screens. They were more expensive when I looked for them, so test it for the 14-30 day return period and see if you actually like it.
I don't understand why people don't keep such comments to their anonymous, unofficial accounts. You can hold such views in private and still treat people with respect, but saying these things officially changes everything. The co-organiser is in a space where she should know better. She then even doubled down
When asked whether she still held her more problematic views in a follow-up comment, Young responded ambiguously with “I fully stand by the statement you are commenting on.”
The first link you posted is the same as I posted and doesn't reveal the percentage of 3+ home owners. Additionally, the second link you posted reveals that Vancouver has 53.6% of multiple home owners and Toronto 43.0%. If you have 3+ homes out in the sticks, its way less aggravating to the rest of the population that if you have it in a densely populated city.
The data show that nearly half of multiple-property owners who lived in the Vancouver CSD (44.8%), Surrey CSD (45.8%), Richmond CSD (44.2%) and Toronto CSD (46.8%) also owned properties within the same CSD.
Do you really think such a measure wouldn't be important in such cities? The rich and wealthy thank you for your service as their defender. They definitely need it.
Force the rich to sell their multiple houses too. Tax their wealth and they won't have a choice. 3rd homes should get taxed at 10% of their value or more. Let's stop kidding around. That'll force them to divest fast as fuck.
Why are people so weird about sex? It's nothing special. It happens all around the world, probably millions of times per day, we're all here because of it, it's natural, and with consent it is probably one of the least harmful things humans can do to each other. People should be given the place and time to engage in sexual activities comfortably, safely, and lovingly. They should be able to get to know their own bodies and explore those of others to learn and have fun.
It's the parents' job to create a good environment where the children can feel comfortable talking to them about sex and learning important lessons from them e.g that porn is not a good representation of what happens in a bedroom, how important communication during sexual activities is (verbal or otherwise), how every partner is different, and so on.
The latter especially has this widely-misquoted line:
It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.
Many people understood it as "80% of women go for 20% of guys", but that's not what it's saying.
If you also look at the first article, it has many graphs which speak for themselves
I wish they worked with opensource projects like Heroic to provide an easy and fast way to run their games on Linux like in Steam. And if they provided a donation option or something to fund that work.
LMAO, that person is delusional and has no idea what human trafficking is.
Human trafficking is the act of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, or receiving individuals through force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of exploitation.
Sure, it was possibly dangerous, but human trafficking it was not. Although, if they forced you to eat a salade nicoise, that's torture and should've been reported.
It would another Vietnam or Afghanistan. They'd invade, kill a few thousand maybe million people, mire around, and then retreat again with their funds drained and thousands of crippled veterans with PTSD.
Did you forget a word?
I'm having trouble with the rest of your post too. Autocorrect must've struck or something.