Stepos Venzny

Some words just have more than one definition is all. It’s not about me, it’s about the dictionary.

Xenophobia isn’t a medical term. All the examples you listed are xenophobia.

I was giving the Lee Lemon thing as an example where I agree Kif’s reaction was homophobic, saying it was the only such example I could think of.

The patrons are responding to the way he’s performing. Zapp is broadly a parody of Captain Kirk and this scene was a reference to William Shatner’s infamous spoken word cover of Rocketman, at least until Zapp fully broke down and started wailing the name of the woman who hates him. The only reason the song is Lola is because that’s a famous song you can easily swap Leela’s name into.

I swear I remember a Kif reaction, too, by the way.

I only remember one instance of Kif being homophobic, when Zapp says Lee Lemon is filling him with “other emotions that are weird and confusing.” Not wanting to constantly see your commanding officer naked isn’t homophobia.

And his annoyance when Zapp sang a name-swapped version of Lola was about how Zapp is acting toward Leela by doing that rather than the subject matter of the original song. Zapp even replaced the trans subject with a cis one, what could a transphobe even be objecting to?

It would greatly benefit your argument to provide another possible explanation.

Could you give an example of a web page that doesn’t work right on it? I’ve never noticed browsers differing like you describe.

Traditionally yes, don’t ask me how.

Jack

As an actual name by itself, not the typical John and then using Jack as a nickname for it.

I think this disparity in votes and comments is also hugely affected by how the UI has been changing over the years as well as the destruction of third party apps. The site is now designed in a way where active participation is less encouraged than ever before unless you’re running old reddit on a traditional computer with an ad blocker.

Flat Earth.

It’s not the most immediately shocking, not the most colorful and dramatic, but there are two factors where no other conspiracy theory can compete:

1. It is so easily falsifiable that basically more people would have to be in on the conspiracy than not.
2. Nobody would stand to gain anything from the lie.

Furniture of proportionate scale to my body.

To all you fellow deviations from the average height: look up the ratios of how your body is supposed to relate to chairs, tables, counters, and screens and search for ways to make that happen. These things are not supposed to cause you inevitable pain.

You can’t make everything perfect, especially if sharing spaces with people who don’t match your scale, but do what you can and it will make a huge difference.

Also this is good advice for the regular-sized, the problem is just less pervasive for them.

What these questions are missing is that the government didn’t start from a place of neutrality, they started by enforcing the institution of slavery. They didn’t go from having no authority over slavery to having all of it, rather the authority they had remained static. The only variable for the amount of authority then is that the classes of “slave” and “slave owner” stopped being a thing, so there were no longer slave owners that had absolute authority over slaves.

You’ve now described a second scenario in which authority is being removed and not added.

No.

It is literally removing authority.

Do you disagree with anything Hedge said up there? Because you sound extremely argumentative in tone but you don’t seem to have claimed anything that contradicts any of it.

Do you think short people are living an unhealthy lifestyle?

Huschke’s version could work if the rich guy wants to destroy money that isn’t his in order to make own money more valuable, like I’m pretty sure was the plot of the movie Goldfinger.

Also I guess the green dude blew up the mint shortly before this happened so destroyed money can’t just be replaced.

So, underneath all the dramatic and flowery language, the argument being made seems to be “if the purpose of our biology is to make its own DNA persist, it wouldn’t make sense for biological chimeras to exist; based on the ability of cells to coordinate even with different DNA, the main goal seems to be human cells cooperating to make a general human form.”

This anthropomorphizing of biological building blocks is ridiculous. Cells and DNA are not in competition over who runs the show because they aren’t sapient. And I fully understand that the scientist making this claim understands that on an intellectual level but I mention it because the backbone of this argument is to conflate the literal and the figurative. The only inconsistency in cells being compatible despite having different “bosses” would be an ideological one and, because there isn’t any actual ideology at play, it doesn’t matter whether it’s consistent when attempting to describe it. You’ve proven a metaphor wasn’t literally true, congratulations.

But setting all that aside, this still doesn’t actually function as a counter argument. If we are to accept the premise of DNA’s authority as literal truth, is this function of unrelated cells to be compatible with each other not a logical extension of the DNA’s will? It more benefits the DNA for the organism to be viable even if that means other DNA also persists. It has a greater chance of reproducing itself if it’s not in a corpse.

Not only does the argument hinge on anthropomorphism, it also hinges on this metaphorical entity being self-destructively spiteful.

Lastly, it is downright comical to mention things like “cells know on their own that the heart goes on the left” when making an argument that a different characterization of biology is wrong based on the existence of rare biological edge cases. Some people’s hearts aren’t where hearts normally go. I’d let this kind of thing slide as a simplification of the truth were this not part of calling out exactly the same degree of simplification from someone else as being invalid.

That last paragraph is wild. Why would you even try to apply social dynamics to drug compatibility?