Deserves its spot way more than NuTrek: The Blandening from where I'm sitting.
I have no problem with any of this.
I don't get any say in what I call people?
To extend your example - there are women who are perfectly fine with "hey baby", yet I would not choose to address anyone that way. Seems like that much judgement is available to me.
I think the point you're missing is that the LPA does not speak for all "little people", and it's quite obvious many of them only accept the term as a slightly less awful alternative to the really offensive ones.
If someone tells me they personally prefer "little people", that's the term I will use around them. But, I would not use that as the default without more information, if only because it sounds condescending, and if I were in that position, I would not want to be called that.
I think part of the problem is that it can only be used as a noun. For example, the Wiki page for the DAAA refers to "little people athletes" - tell me that's not awkward. How would "black people athletes" sound?
To extend your example - there are women who are perfectly fine with "hey baby", yet I would not choose to address anyone that way. Seems like that much judgement is available to me.
I think the point you're missing is that the LPA does not speak for all "little people", and it's quite obvious many of them only accept the term as a slightly less awful alternative to the really offensive ones.
If someone tells me they personally prefer "little people", that's the term I will use around them. But, I would not use that as the default without more information, if only because it sounds condescending, and if I were in that position, I would not want to be called that.
I think part of the problem is that it can only be used as a noun. For example, the Wiki page for the DAAA refers to "little people athletes" - tell me that's not awkward. How would "black people athletes" sound?
That's a really good point, many terms work fine as adjectives, but sound terrible as nouns: black, albino, gay/bisexual, etc.
Seems the problem is there is no adjective term for "those of uncommonly short stature".
Seems the problem is there is no adjective term for "those of uncommonly short stature".
You know what? I seem to have already said everything you felt the need to "educate" me about, someone needs to get off their high horse.
The only difference is that I will not call someone something that I consider demeaning just because the LPA says to. I have the suspicion that "people of short stature" is a rather diverse community, and not all of them are in love with the term (see other comments for examples).
So, no, it's not what "they call themselves", it's what some of them call themselves.
The only difference is that I will not call someone something that I consider demeaning just because the LPA says to. I have the suspicion that "people of short stature" is a rather diverse community, and not all of them are in love with the term (see other comments for examples).
So, no, it's not what "they call themselves", it's what some of them call themselves.
Hmm, I was under the impression that "dwarfism" is the catch-all term that encompasses the various underlying causes of short stature.
Can I just say that I think the term "little people" is absolutely deplorable? I can't bring myself to call anyone something so demeaning.
Seriously, who came up with that? And what exactly is wrong with "dwarf", anyway? Apparently "dwarfism" is still an appropriate clinical term, so go figure.
Until a better solution is found, I propose that those of uncommonly short stature are "people" and the rest of us can be "large people".
Seriously, who came up with that? And what exactly is wrong with "dwarf", anyway? Apparently "dwarfism" is still an appropriate clinical term, so go figure.
Until a better solution is found, I propose that those of uncommonly short stature are "people" and the rest of us can be "large people".
It's only M-theory that has multiple universes, no? Most string theories only have extra 'dimensions' in the mathematical sense.
I just think it's important to remember that this kind of "speculative physics" isn't part of actual physics quite yet. There's a reason they're called QM "interpretations" and not "hypotheses".
I just think it's important to remember that this kind of "speculative physics" isn't part of actual physics quite yet. There's a reason they're called QM "interpretations" and not "hypotheses".
Poe's Law strikes again (or rather Poe's Corollary).
Actually I think the guy was having a tough time getting all of that out with a straight face.
Actually I think the guy was having a tough time getting all of that out with a straight face.
Dear God, so that's how all these kids have been finding out that touching their genitals feels good - it was Planned Parenthood all along!
That's kind of a stretch, more likely, some scientists entertain it as a cute philosophical exercise. By and large, scientists (in their professional capacity) don't tend to believe in highly theoretical, entirely unproven propositions.
I'm sure there are a couple that actually do, of course.
I'm sure there are a couple that actually do, of course.
So, what's wrong with that?
Is turning a chicken into an "unconscious robot" worse than killing it? Or should people feel guilty about eating unconscious robots?
I'd argue that the Persian loss/victory at Marathon wouldn't have had significant repercussions on the long-term drivers of colonial expansion (centuries later, I should add).
You think the Persian subjugation (or destruction) of the Greek states before the start of the Classical period would not have major repercussions on the history of Europe?
The colonial expansion could very well have happened at around the same time, significantly earlier or later, or not at all; but the cultural (not to mention ethnic) background of the people involved would be entirely different.
I've always wondered, why do parallel universe enthusiasts always link the diverging universes to human actions?
Shouldn't there be a universe for every possible quantum state of every subatomic particle?
Bullshit.
People have the right to believe anything they want. If what they believe is stupid, they will be called "stupid", if what they believe is crazy, they will be called "crazy".
There will be some margin for error, of course, but you can't just decide that all beliefs are equally valid.
Why blame the magazine? Blame the people who buy it.
I'm quite sure this issue did very well for them, sales-wise.
Some things are more than just a stereotype: there is absolutely no non-creepy way of owning a RealDoll.
Well shit, is it the 1950s again all of a sudden, and no one told me?
male masturbation in general, is generally not discussed among straight men
Huh? That... has not been my experience, to say the least. In straight male company, masturbation is discussed often, and with great relish.
I have to disagree that these "sleeves" (or whatever the technical term is) are "dildos for dudes" - dildos (and vibrators) for dudes are just regular old dildos (and vibrators), used by dudes. There certainly is a stigma associated with those, but they're used far more than the sleeve things by (gasp!) straight dudes.
With the Fleshlights it's more of a basic lack of appeal than stigma that stands in the way of their popularity. Let's face it, hands work quite well for jerking off (very well, in fact), and sticking your junk into a bit of plastic is just not an improvement, in most cases.
Apparently they now also have motorized versions, that sync up with specially designed POV porn videos. At that point, yeah, that hints at an overabundance of time and energy expended on this particular activity.
Interesting. I think they actually had the materials in the first millennium BCE to replicate the bitumen on pewter process. Of course they wouldn't be able to go past that, the silver nitrate-based processes would need another couple thousand years worth of developments in chemistry (see #6 above).
I don't think it would have much of an impact, the ability to produce super fuzzy images (that take days to develop) doesn't seem that revolutionary.
Would've been cool, though.
The laser thing seems harder, since the Assyrians would also have to have invented a time machine to be able to fight Alexander.
