pretty much yeah

Diet versions are pointless as they provide no sugar. I’d rather drink water

Sorry to hear, I hope your day improves or that tomorrow is a better one

On the plus side, if this is the worst part of your day, you had a pretty good day

It’s legal in a lot of the EU though, especially if you stay out of eastern Europe

I can see how it’s extra sensitive, given the genocide

oh yeah, as an academic term it’s probably useful

I think there’s a mix. I get the impression that cultural appropriation as a thing to be offended about is well past its peak and dying out, but back when it was popular I knew people in real life angry about these things. Not bad people either… well meaning people who spent a bit too much time online and didn’t think things through themselves.

That’s really interesting! Nice sounding instrument

If I had and it was that easy, we wouldn’t have this neverending stream at someone getting offended because someone did something associated with a culture they don’t have obvious blood ties to.

I think there is asshole behaviour that could be described as cultural appropriation, but I think the vast majority of them also fit under “exploitation” or “racism”.

It’s also apparent that if you tell people “cultural appropriation is bad”, you get pretty silly outcomes. Suddenly you have protests because a restaurant serves sushi without being ethnically japanese, or someone yells at you because you post a photo of a california roll.

Given those examples I should probably go have lunch

negative and unrealistic stereotype

which would just be racism really

The concept of cultural appropriation seems to be pretty useless in practice.

The cases I’ve encountered where it makes some bit of sense fit better under the concepts of racism or exploitation. The complaints about cultural appropriation online seem to more often attack innocent behaviour or someone genuinely appreciating another culture.

Drink tea, make tacos, wear a kimono, don’t be an asshole

If it’s difficult to know, people probably should be given the benefit of the doubt

I think it might be a slightly wasteful system. I haven’t dug deep but this article seems to hint that it’s not all to pay better teachers. E.g:

A study found that the California State University system had 11,614 full-time faculty in 1973, and 12,019 in 2008. During that same time period, administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183, ending up with more administrators than faculty.

I learnt lots at university, and that has been useful at work, but the degree itself doesn’t seem to matter much. But I’m in tech, and Europe, and university was publicly funded

American universities keep raising the prices and people keep paying. There’s no reason for it to cost that much, beyond profits

“it’s not literal” could be you realising it doesn’t make sense, in a context where you’re supposed to believe in it.

What parts people take literally seems to vary a lot. I guess it allows everyone to make it say what they want it to say

Or it would hallucinate and do weird shit, or get easily manipulated by someone

What people are calling AI in this bubble is just a mindless text generator

The answer is often more complex

Every time I think Zuck is as pathetic as someone can be, he finds a new depth to sink to. Truly an innovator

I’m not sure if you can call them trolls if they’ve sincerely lost their grip on reality, and are a significant voting block.