Untitled

No, really, why?!

Muslims should be allowed to wear the hijab, because anyone should be allowed to wear a hijab, because it’s a fucking hat, and the government has no business whatsoever legally mandating what amounts to a personal fashion choice!

Let’s seriously run with the way OP phrased this, ok? “I know my decision to wear a hat on my head seems bad–” DOES IT?! Does it REALLY?!

In isolation, headscarfs are completely morally neutral! There is nothing at all about deciding to wear a scarf on your head that is uniquely and inherently repressive – as evidenced by the fact that countries which ban the hijab aren’t banning women from wearing hats for non-religious reasons. The only argument that you can possibly make that putting a piece of cloth on your head is a harmful activity that the government should get to control is that when a person does so as a Muslim, that fact so completely changes the act of putting that cloth on their head that now there’s suddenly, magically, a compelling government interest in banning it.

So no, religious liberty is not “a good policy but a bad justification”. Religious liberty is a good justification against objectively discriminatory policies. That’s what the concept is meant to protect against, and talking about it as though you can separate it out from that discriminatory context is disingenuous at its core.

It’s true that there need to be limits to this. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose – religious liberty should not extend to things like murder, or child abuse, or plenty of other unjustifiable actions. And yes, it’s also true that there is some grey area there, too, because what qualifies as a real societal harm is not entirely clear cut.

“That’s funny” said the child “because 2+4=6 and two pounds and four pounds is six pounds. It’s like the same as math!”

“What happens if you add 6+1?”

“SEVEN”

“What if we put one pound of mangos on the scale?” <mangos added>

“IT’S THE SAME!!”

“OK, what’s 7-4?”

“Three?”

“What if we take the four pound watermelon off the scale?” <watermelon removed>

Not because the system is obviously unfair and terrible; that's completely fine. People deal with unfair and terrible systems all the time and there's no reason why going to an afterlife that sucks on a cosmic level means that the afterlife is fake -- maybe the universe just isn't fair. No, anyone who was a fraction less self-absorbed than the four humans would've figured it out by the party.

Because Michael does the little orientation video, where he explains the system. He explains that they, the very BEST people, who did the most good in the world, made it to heaven. And everybody else? "Don't worry about it." He says this to a guy who apparently died after donating his kidneys to a stranger on a bus. He says this to a guy who apparently spent half his life fighting for women's rights and the other half for gay rights in oppressive environments. He says this to a woman who apparently arranged, against the government, a volunteer organisation to personally go out there and clear out minefields around areas frequented by children. And then they all go to a big party...

and they don't give a shit.

At that point it should be blatantly obvious that the good place is fake. Because if you gather a bunch of people together based on the criteria that they selflessly gave their lives to help others, often "bad" people, and you tell them "oh, the vast majority of those people you helped will be tortured forever, don't worry about them, you get to relax in paradise, let's have a party", you would have a riot right there at the orientation. "Good" people, by the criteria Michael proposes, the kind of people who do the things that the actors are claiming they do, would simply not accept that; it goes against everything they are and everything they do. They would do exactly what they did for their whole lives, they would exhibit the priorities and personalities that got them into the good place in the first place.

I'd sit through the presentation thinking "okay, everyone's got their brave faces on, they don't want to attack an angel without preparation, this rebellion will require work, fine," and put on a fake smile, but when they gather at the party and there's not a hint of rebellion, of rage, of righteous fury against heaven? At that point, most people would know immediately that the people around them are lying. It just doesn't make sense for 322 people to change so radically in such a situation.

They probably were furious when they arrived. They probably fought and pleaded against their keepers for years. And their keepers had meetings where they talked about how unhappy the humans were and what they could add to make the afterlife more fun, like unicorns and giant mini donuts (not the same as regular donuts -- Dave will explain).

They get flagged on your blog AND in your queue, and sometimes you can't even tell what the fuck was even in the post so you can give a justification for asking an appeal

And if you aren't scrolling your own blog or queue constantly like a maniac, you won't even know the reblog is flagged cuz they get put in your Review Flagged Posts section of your app and website, somewhere NOBODY even checks, and has no number next to it to tell you how many posts are in there

I got reblogs flagged all the way to 2017 in there, and the only way to know is to SCROLL DOWN

And the cherry on that bullshit Sunday is that some of these reblogs can be flagged without you even being able to appeal them like I have a bunch of them which are simply impossible to appeal, even if yet again the post is completely innocent

• If P(x) is the formula “x is not an element of x”, then B can’t be a set in any consistent set theory per Russell’s Paradox (it would be an element of itself iff it was not an element of itself).

• If P(x) is “x ≠ x”, B is the empty collection, which is a set in every set theory I’ve ever heard of.

• If P(x) is “x = x” then B is the universe, which is not a set in any well-founded set theory (it would be an element of itself) but is a set in for example NF.

If P(x) is “x is an element of x” then B is a set in any well-founded set theory (being empty) but not in NF (otherwise its complement, the Russell collection, would be a set).

Etc.

I’m just curious how many people at some point in their lives have played/learned to play an instrument of any kind.

I included a nuance button bc I know there might be some folks who might be like “well I played the recorder in grade school but idk if that counts” — count it if you want or hit nuance if you’re unsure! 😊

To be clear, if you studied an instrument to any level of proficiency, even if you’re out of practice now, please select yes!

I won't be considering the axiomatic framework of α-sets in depth right now, but if there's interest I can write something up another time (perhaps when I'm not on the toilet). I think the analogy with Grothendeick universes is a good one, but we're going to run into the same ontological issue here (ie, Grothendeick universes think they are proper classes, but we typically consider them sitting inside some bigger Grothendeick universe that thinks the smaller one is a set).

If we let V^α be the (α+1)-set of all α-sets, then for an inaccessible cardinal κ, we can perform essentially all of ordinary mathematics inside of V^{κ}. The emphasis is given to show that we've not actually solved the problem we were trying to address here; we have simply pushed it up κ many levels of abstraction, and for our effort we get to come up with a whole new axiomatic framework.

According to sources a new boyband has been formed at Bootcamp with 5 solo contestants thought to be more promising as a group.

The boyband made up of auditionees: Louis Tomlinson, Harry Styles, Liam Payne, Niall Horan and Zayn Malik

(Liam being one of this years re-auditonee’s) The boyband are yet unamed.