Hey you fucking acorn, wanna take a break from insulting me and putting words in my mouth to point out where I said that the only people suitable for law enforcement are pieces of shit?
My point, for the third (3rd) time, is that having Harry be interested in being a cop is out of character and poor writing because of Harry’s traits and background
Does it? Honestly?
What? Those aren’t equivalent at all. My whole point is that it’s bad writing and out of character for Harry to be interested in becoming a cop. Him becoming a cop is in no way equivalent to him pursuing literally anything else that would be more in-character.
Your second point has nothing to do with anything, and I don’t know why you included it.
WTF is up with Lemmy lately? At times it seems like it’s been overrun by a bunch of pearl clutchers and prudes.
Like, it’s ok to talk about sex. Sex is a natural, healthy component of most relationships. Someone mentioning something adjacently related to sex shouldn’t send you into an R-rated tizzy, and if it does, you might want to examine your thoughts and feelings about sex, because they probably aren’t all healthy.
Eh, that’s basically the exact definition of news actually lmao
Those things qualify you for a whole slew of jobs, and Harry has plenty of other interests besides fighting evil wizards. It seems like very shallow, hackneyed writing to have a 14-year-old latch on to becoming a cop in a community that he didn’t even know existed until he was 11*, one which he literally isn’t permitted to participate in until he finishes boarding school.
Auror was his very first idea
Not to nitpick, but Auror was Rowling’s first idea, as you suggest in your last sentence there. Rowling’s narrow-minded world view wouldn’t let the hero become a teacher, or a politician, or an activist, or anything else. Her view of the world says cops are the real heroes, so the hero of her story must become a cop.
I hope you’re this pedantic when people ask for a Kleenex or a q-tip, or when they use Velcro
No it isn’t, that’s the economic reality. Do you think billionaires make that much because of some outrageously high salary or hourly wage? Because that ain’t it. They make their money by having money.
It’s Canonical’s (the company that created/updates/supports Ubuntu) package format. There are a few problems.
They can only be hosted on proprietary Canonical servers. That sort of flies in the face of one of the “free” aspects of Linux. Canonical is also sort of fostering a reputation of abandoning/massively changing something core in Ubuntu every couple major releases, which has made some wary of depending on snaps, since if Canonical decides to stop hosting them, anyone dependent on them is kinda screwed. Snaps can also chew up disk space if you’re not careful. I don’t think that’s necessarily unique to snaps, but in my experience that issue has been worse with snaps than with comparable alternatives like flatpaks.
And if it’s like any other government education program, it will produce solely negative and crappy results and just be weaponized against students and teachers both
This is how I know you’re just being grumpy to be grumpy. This is extreme hyperbole at best. No public education system is perfect, far from it, but to claim every government education system ever has only produced negative results is insane.
Yes, it’s a bad, clickbait headline. That’s why it’s important to read the articles.
I think you’re making some leaps here. Nothing in the article is suggesting that all boys are evil, or that they’re going to be socially isolated. Granted, the article doesn’t exactly give specifics about how it’ll be enacted, but I feel like you’re filling in the gaps with the worst stuff you can imagine, and then getting mad at that.
From my reading of the article, it seems like they’re just adding topics like pornography, deep-fake/image abuse, consent, coercion, peer-pressure, online abuse, etc. to the curriculum, coupled with training for teachers to be able to recognize and address misogynistic behaviors. Again, I’ll grant that the article is missing some important details like how they’re going to teach those various topics, how they’re going to empower teachers to identify problems, the checks and balances they’ll use to prevent teachers abusing the system, what they’re defining as misogyny, etc. But I feel like those details are a little too in-the-weeds for this type of overview article, and until we do know what those details are, I don’t think filling those gaps by assuming the worst is productive.
You’re focusing specifically on porn, but the plan in the article doesn’t. The plan isn’t to tell boys to “just say no” to porn.
You’ll find no disagreements from me that porn isn’t necessarily the root cause of misogyny, but I don’t think anything in the article suggests that.
After reading the article, it seems like there’s a lot more to this than just classes for boys. I struggle to draw the same comparison to 80s abstinence-only sex education, and I think schools can contribute in more ways than the one you listed, like the ones mentioned in the article.
I think you’re confusing flatpaks with snaps
It’s literally the brute-force approach to Internet service
If you’re gonna be pedantic, at least have the courtesy to also be correct
“The secret to making friends is to go out and make a bunch of friends!”
Gee, why didn’t I think of that
You insulted my intelligence (“can’t build you a logic bridge big enough blah blah blah”) and then hit me with the ol “nuh uh, you’re wrong I’m right” argument, so I’m forced to believe I’m talking with a child. Go to bed son, you’ve got school in the morning.