It sounds like the guys just got out whatever cash they had and it wasn’t quite enough to cover the whole bill, but still a very nice thing to do,

“Above anything, I would like people to say ‘OK, she’s human’”

But what I said is literally true. This article was stating that someone who has a 40% chance of getting into an elite university automatically has a 60% chance of getting in if they’re a legacy.

“If they paid no attention to your legacy status, chances are a lot of legacies would still get in because yeah, having huge access to wealth and education makes a big difference.”

Read the article linked in above:

You can be proud of your accomplishments and hard work while still acknowledging your privilege. That means, yeah, admitting that part of why you got into your school was that you were a legacy and if you were in a different position but worked just has hard, it probably wouldn’t have been possible. I’m speaking here…

OK, so we’re ignoring the really egregious unethical actions (ie the 10mill donors) for now. You’ve stated before that legacies are more likely to have access to privileges that the vast majority of students do not have. You really think that, if two students are truly equally qualified, we should pick the kid who…

I’m not saying there’s not, I’m saying that it isn’t the ONLY reason they’re getting in— they’re also getting the extra leg up of being favored because they’re legacies. A leg up they really don’t need because they’re incredibly privileged.

You’re sort of implying here that legacy kids are getting in because they have superior qualifications, resulting from the opportunities they’ve had in their lives. But the colleges don’t even pretend that— they are pretty open that being a legacy makes you more likely to get in, regardless of your actual…

That’s probably how I would describe this place: http://www.stationfoods.com/?page_id=75

I’m usually surprised when I see a study about prevalence of sexual harassment that ISN’T 100%. This makes perfect sense to me.

There is a ton of existing evidence linking loneliness to adverse health outcomes, no? That seems like it would explain this pretty well. I really hope our generation is the one to create a world where people don’t see their only options as married or single and living alone.

This applies even to people who I agree with 100% on all topics— if you’re about to write a whole series of tweets ranting about the same topic, stop. You’re gonna sound like an overwrought idiot.

When my brother invited me to his baby’s first birthday party, he said “And I mean. . .he doesn’t know it’s his birthday or anything so you don’t have to like, get him a present.” There. Done. What is so hard about that for people?

I do understand it. I understand the risks that I take on with my ‘sexual lifestyle’. There are risks involved in literally everything I do, and I am educated about them. I ride my bike every day too, which puts me at risk for accidents that are much more serious than herpes could be— but I wear a helmet and I’m OK…

Riiight, my gynecologist’s advice is not scientifically valid. Thank you, random internet commenter. I never said I don’t get tested regularly; there’s a difference between regularly and between every partner.

Not everyone is going to get tested before and after every partner. It’s not realistic or necessary— each person has to gauge what risks they are willing to take when it comes to their sex life. Regular testing and condoms greatly reduces your risk, but not 100%. I am well aware of the prevalence and risk of herpes…

I don’t understand why you’re interpreting what she and I are saying as “there’s no need to try and protecting yourself against herpes”. It’s not inevitable, but it is not 100% preventable, except for abstinence, and a lifetime of abstinence is not something most people want to consider, and they shouldn’t be…

The woman in this article has never had sex without a condom. You can get it if you use condoms. That’s all she’s saying. Are you arguing that there’s a value in the stigma around it? What do you think that value is?

Gentle, sane way to address that issue: “We’d love you to come celebrate baby’s birthday with us! But please, no gifts, we already have far too many toys and will find ourselves having to return your generous gifts”. If they wanted to go CRAZY, they could even suggest donating to charity in the child’s name instead.…