https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xYfH8nftFpw

Here’s an interview with a survivor. It is infuriating.

No, the right to bare arms. Like, you can wear a tank top if you wanna

Lemmy is small enough that we can care about each other here, man :) I did read it, and man that really fucking sucks. I’ve been through some similar stuff before, both with severe food aversion and having a narcissistic parent. I understand why you have a negative view of the world right now, and I hope that your circumstances improve. I also hope that you’re able to look at the world more charitably regardless of your circumstances, although I think you’ve got bigger things on your mind right now than emotional growth and that it’s totally reasonable for you to prioritize your physical health.

No, no one ever suggested that. That is an entirely new sentence that you made up. The only thing that was said is that a person cried, and that that same person fished by the bridge as a child. People can feel emotions for more than one reason at a time.

For real, what is going on in your personal life?

Don’t you think that’s an uncharitable analysis? Joe Wade never said anything like what you’re suggesting he did, and the journalist wanted to provide supporting context for the headline’s claim about a lost piece of Baltimore cultural identity. We also do not have access to the full interview, only a single line of it–Wade could have said something about the workers, only for the journalist to omit it because that is not what the article is about. The interview would have been very different, with different questions and different answers and a different person being interviewed, if the topic had been the people who died rather than the culture of the city.

I know you’re capable of better reading comprehension and media literacy than this, and I don’t think you hold a personal grudge against Joe Wade, so what’s going on in your personal life to make you have such a negative presupposition about the world?

That is a bad faith argument because the physical appearance of the person whose skin binds the cover of a book has absolutely no relevance to the information in the book. In fact, it wasn’t even Arsene Houssaye who bound the book in skin-- it was the book’s first owner, Dr. Ludovic Bouland, who did that.

Can you tell me what the color of a dead stranger’s eyes whose skin was added to a book by a third party has to do with a nineteenth century French novelist’s views on the soul and life after death?

You can’t, because there is no relevance to be had. It’s a bad faith argument.

The information of the book is encoded in the markings on its pages, not the molecular makeup of the binding holding the pages together. Meanwhile, it is the fact that this skull is made of bone that gives it its veracity.

Up until now you’ve been here making good faith arguments, it’d be cool if you could keep that up.

Lots of things were “verified” in 1860. Shit, washing your hands before surgery wasn’t even a common medical practice until the 1870s. The whole point of keeping the original is so that it can stand up to the rigors of modern science and technology.

Technology and knowledge in 150 years will make today’s science seem sincere but laughable, just like today’s science makes 1860 seem sincere but laughable. That’s why you must preserve scientific evidence whenever and wherever you can.

For one, veracity. There are lots of unsubstantiated claims similar to this one, just look at the National Enquirer if you’d like an example. This one is real, with verifiable proof, meaning we can use it as a foundation to build more knowledge on top of. Seeing as there is no moral or ethical way to remove someone’s left frontal lobe as a science experiment, it is as close to a case study as we are ever likely to get.

Was Gage’s skull used for educational purposes that couldn’t be gotten from the information when he was still alive?

Well, when he was alive, he was still using it. That does kinda put a damper on things, from an educational point of view.

And was that worth keeping it for well over a century?

Honestly, yes. At this point in time, Phineas Gage’s skull and the knowledge gleaned from the study of it has been used to educate thousands upon thousands of people, and then each of those multitudes of educated people went on to improve the lives of thousands and thousands of people. That’s pretty damn good for one single cadaver.

Maybe the difference is that one is a one-of-a-kind medical oddity that was used for research and education and is a fixture in the fields of neurology and psychology, and the other is used for shock value and hazing rituals?

This joke kinda reveals that OP is circumsized and probably thinks all other people with pensises are circumsized, too.

I wish nonconsentual genital mutilation wasn’t such a normalized thing in American society.

“That’s an interesting admission” is such a perfect response, hahaha

I’m reminded of this quote from Malcolm X:

“If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress. If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven’t even pulled the knife out much less healed the wound. They won’t even admit the knife is there.”

That’s not what this is about, though. From the fifth paragraph in the article:

As such, Florida universities are prohibited from using state or federal cash to fund any activities tied to “diversity, equity and inclusion” or “political or social activism,” which carry broad definitions and could apply to a wide range of programs. Schools now are beginning to enact these policies locally.

This isn’t about “treating people differently” and it is almost certainly not about race (although it’s not lost on me that they waited until the day after Black History Month to announce this change). This is about on-campus activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. It’s about teaching students that America is varied, not monocultural. It’s about teaching students that transgender people are just people, not the monsters that Ron DeSantis makes them out to be. It’s about broadening perspectives, not enhancing an echo chamber. It’s about giving a voice and a platform to non-white, non-male, non-straight, non-cis, and non-wealthy perspectives that have historically been silenced so thoroughly that an entire system of class and privilege was built up around that silence.

“Capitalism breeds innovation”

Please don’t put words in my mouth. When did I ever say 50%? Someone else botched their math and got to that number, and I even took the time to explain why their math was wrong. I have only told others to “tip generously”, to always include a tip in their budget while dining out, and in your specific case to tip more than 15%. Even in the offhand example I gave that you think is so insane and stupid, it only comes out to a 33% tip. The people who do the lion’s share of the actual labor deserve the lion’s share of the profits, and there’s nothing insane or stupid about that.

Right!? If you’re lucky enough to be financially secure right now, tipping can even be seen as a form of mutual aid!

Yep! The people directly serving us deserve to get paid more, and while we can’t raise their wage, we can at least make sure they’re getting paid well while they serve us.

Serving a $200 meal requires a lot of knowledge and physical skill that the server down at Chili’s probably doesn’t have. The kind of restaurant that sells a $200 meal also has a larger support staff that must be given a percentage of the server’s tip