This issue only exists is you ignore that gender categories are, in fact, always descriptors ( this is true of ANY category), in that they are the gender category a person belongs to. To belong to a gender category is part of who someone is.

Easy: argue that boys can like barbies.

No… actually, for the given category is nothing more than what the individual feel represents them. We could have one for every individual in the world and they would work just fine. They are somewhat similar to names in this respect. Are our names useless just because everyone has a different one?

Ugh… this notion of people trying "special snowflake" really needs to stop. People aren't engaging in some conspiracy to get people to recognise how they are more special than others. They are just identifying with the categories they feel they belong to.

Not really… even when someone does identify as demigender for such a reason, they are only committing to that sense for themselves, so the gender stereotype isn't applied to anyone else.

That said, I actually don't mind Einar. I find the contrast of his voice with Bjork's bizarrely pleasant. It's absurd, but then that's probably why it works for me.

To be fair… he was rather evil, so I'm not sure you should be too worried. An Xmas free of a homicidal robot shooting up people at random is rather comfortable.

All we can hope for is that he got around to destroying Project Satan.

Claims to knowledge is not a subset of belief. Any belief takes a position on what is true. In the instance of any belief, someone profess they know what is so- "I think that is so." This is a belief.

Actually, "false equivalently" occurs all the time in discussions of "equality." You are actually doing it here.

Agnosticism is actually incoherent as knowledge. How can, if someone doesn't know whether or not something exists, take a position of belief either way? If they did, then they would have an understanding which either reflected the truth or not. We know that the claim it is impossible to know whether or not a state of…

Taking Dunham "seriously" is exactly what my point is about. Are you saying people shouldn't be taking Dunham seriously? If you are, where does that leave people who gain something worthwhile from her work?

Thank you. I hadn't seen it.

Where does this article suggest that?

It is actually the equivocation of two different uses of "extraordinary." Joe Cee used it to mean: "Dunham hasn't done anything worth praise." Aprilgrl meant: "Dunham has had a career which is successful."

I'm somewhat surprised by this reading. This article doesn't really praise Dunham much it all, in terms of creating pithy work. All it really does is describe her success and note she worked hard enough to create a film/show when given the opportunity.

Technically, it is a portmanteau of "post-normative" and "monogamous," indicating someone's stance on relationships is "post (i.e. afterwards, moved on)" the governing cultural expectation (i.e normative) of monogamy.

I think the point of the curse was to trap Angel in a state where he knows his happiness or contentment with bring forth terrible suffering on the world.

NetHack is the holder of my most shameful gaming failure. The second time I got to the Astral Plane, I went in such a rush that I managed to sacrifice the Amulet of Yendor on the wrong altar and so failed to ascend.

I suspect so. Or at least something else which stops Bill deferring to any outside authority at all.