A home is an asset. Assets are "investments".

But no, it's definitely not that either.

Look, you have to start with something. I mean, by your standard, out of a 24-hour day fully 8 hours of it aren't permissible conversation? I guess that leaves "what kind of TV shows do you watch?" and "what do you dream about?" neither of which are really lighting people on fire.

No, it's about your racist assumption that "what's your ethnicity" is a synonym for "what kind of non-white are you, I need to know in order to craft the specific terms of your personalized oppression." Ethnicity isn't "othering" - it can't be, by definition, because everybody has an ethnicity; thus, nobody who has…

I dunno. Where did they come from?

"What she did cover was her racist assumption that white people don't have ethnicities or don't talk about them."

I did. Not covered. What she did cover was her racist assumption that white people don't have ethnicities or don't talk about them. (Yeah, we pretty much do - all the time. We even ask each other about them! Some of us even make negative judgments about the ethnicities of others! Crazy, right?)

But again - so you want to know. Wanting to know things about people you meet and are having conversations with isn't some kind of weird thoughtcrime.

Get over what, though? That's the question, here. Literally everyone has an ethnicity and they're all pretty interesting and bring something unique and cool to the table. Why be so fucking coy about it, unless you think "ethnicity" is a code word for "not white"? Hint: white people come with ethnicities, too. Many…

This is instantly othering.

I just find it important to note that, as I am not certain, I'm open to fact based evidence and if given proof and rational reasons, could change my mind.

1 in 100 Christians that I know and have personally spoken with are awesome human beings.

But she didn't say the elevator guy was history's greatest monster.

That's an interesting technique you have for understanding: don't ask questions, just assert things.

What he said was pretty inartful, sure. But again I don't see where he said that women shouldn't speak out about sexual harassment or any other subject.

Well, that's the problem. It's not "one in 100." Among European Muslims, for instance, a majority think leaving the faith should be punished with execution, three-quarters or more think that people - even non-Muslims - should be jailed for insulting their prophet. It's still the case that a majority of Christians…

Because your participation in your religious community gives cover to extremism. It's like saying "my husband is in the mafia, and sure I spend the money and enjoy the free stuff he brings home, but it's not like I kill people!" Sorry, your participation in the organization makes you complicit.

Dawkins basically said that women shouldn't speak out about sexual harassment because they don't suffer as much as women who have to deal with genital mutilation.

I think the question you need you need to ask is "why is it so important for me to define other people's beliefs for them?"

Just because certainty is asymptotic doesn't make us agnostic about all things. I can't have perfect certainty that there's not a teapot full of piping hot tea in orbit of Alpha Centauri, but its ridiculous to suggest that the lack of any evidence that there is somehow offers equal support to both sides. That which…