Pray tell, where exactly did I and the Atlantic article actually "defend that magnet nonsense"? I'll wait ... :roll:Service Dog wrote: ↑The difference, Steers, is that-- unlike you & the Atlantic link you offered-- I never defended that magnet nonsense in the first place.Steersman wrote: ↑
You going to defend the nuttiness on the right? "Doctor" Sheri Tenpenny who insisted that covid vaccines were turning people into magnets?
https://globalnews.ca/news/7934660/magn ... ctor-ohio/
Is it a "false premise" that you were throwing stones at Colbert and Encyclopedia Britannica? No doubt Colbert himself has some blind spots and biases of his own. But is he more or less on the money when it comes to "truthiness" on the right? That too many on the right - yourself included - are far too quick to throw stones at sources like Britannica? As Wolchover put it, "the most scholarly of encyclopedias, according to Britannica's own Wikipedia page".
Though more than a few on the left also do the same particularly when it comes to Wikipedia. Gratifying to see that you're ready to use it for such things as The Onion debate. Would be even nicer if you were a bit more discerning in your criticisms of it, bit more willing to consider my own criticisms of them. Particularly since I spent some $175 [US] for professional editing services to give it a tune-up:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedi ... 0901a22da2
It's a great site and useful tool but some very problematic if not pervasive biases therein. That won't, or can't, change until more people hold their feet to the fire.
Service Dog wrote: ↑And then-- a complete non sequitur, but a surprise to no one-- you veer back into your Idée Fixe...
You're so fired-up to rehash your same old tired shit... that you forget I CONCEDED THIS EXACT POINT AND TRIED TO AGREE WITH YOU earlier this year.You all ready to concede that the standard biological definitions for the sexes are based on having functional gonads of either of two types?
I stand corrected; mea culpa; shoot me at dawn.
It was late and I didn't have time to check back and see your exact phrasing. Partly why I put in the "you all" to cast my net a little wider. But I've explicitly acknowledged - several times - that you're commendably ready to read at least that writing on the wall. Might help if you were a bit more vocal in supporting that position when it's being disputed by people like Hunny Bunny, Matt, and Fafnir. Getting well past the time where people need to be taking a stand in favour of science and reason and logic, of letting the chips fall where they may.
Rather clearly evident; sticking out like a sore thumb. You're so ready to throw stones at Wikipedia, Colbert, Britannica, & the author of that Atlantic article that you're unable, or unwilling, to see where they have a point or two - cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But maybe some evidence of a few changes in the wind ...
You're a bit of a broken record yourself at times ...