bitofhope
I was expecting a spicier Talk page :(
That's kinda funny. If I'm ever in the market for a proprietary chromium-based web browser, they have my interest.
Sly 2: Band of Thieves final level spoilers
Technically, this would be a gynowl. Or, uh, whatever you call the corpse of a male cyborg owl taken over by an athro bengal tigress.
Fuck, I didn't need to be reminded that they named the robot Optimus. Was "Bender" or "Wall-E" too much of a deep cut? Or is it just that Disney's trademark lawyers are scarier than Hasbro and Nvidia combined?
Alright, since you're asking nicely, I'll give you a commentated play-by-play just this once. Apologies to @self for playing dad and to everyone else for the wall of text.
Consider the context for starters. V0ldek was talking about how shopping for sperm based on the donor's level of education and occupation is weird and eugenicist and making a jab about how jobs are not genetic.
Your reply pointed out that education and job can be proxies for intellect, which some here might dispute, but which is probably not a foreign concept to anyone here. "[Some] people want clever children" is certainly true, but that doesn't make it any less eugenicist.
It’s kind of weird anyway to have a child with someone random, isn’t it?
This is a question with many layers, and V0ldek picks at one of them. Having your child conceived using a stranger's sperm does not constitute having a child with them, in a cultural sense. Consider a couple who commit to having a child together, opt for IVF (for any of many possible reasons), the mother carries the child to term, gives birth, and then the couple raise the child together. It's pretty damn insensitive to say the mother has had a child with the anonymous donor (this also applies if the mother is single or the number of parents is otherwise not a clear two).
I would add that even if you mean "have a child with sb." in a purely genetic sense and still think the gamete of "someone random" being used for insemination is weird, knowing that "someone random" has a fancy diploma and a highly sought job shouldn't make it less weird.
I think for many women “being inseminated by” IS a big thing.
The awkward phrasing makes it sound like you're talking about a breeding kink or something, which doesn't really help.
It is strictly speaking true, that many women consider the identity of the sperm donor a big deal. That is why fertility clinics are screening for donors with high status and providing information on their education and career. The point is, if a woman is willing to have her child conceived using the sperm of an anonymous doctor or pilot, but not someone with unknown level of education or profession, that is eugenics. To deny or downplay that is either condoning eugenics or denying the woman's agency as a moral actor.
Also it's weird to single out women, because embryo recipient mothers are not the only people for whom, uh '"being inseminated by" is a big thing'. The partners of those women frequently also have eugenicist preferences about the children who may not be their genetic descendants, but will probably still be their children. The system is perpetuated by fertility clinic administrators and doctors of all genders, who practice eugenics either due to their own beliefs or to cater to their customers' eugenic choices.
Charitably, you're being Captain Obvious. "Some women want the ability to choose a champion athlete supermodel with a PhD for IVF sperm donor." Yes, and we're discussing that very thing and why it's a problem.
Uncharitably you make it sound like all them women just be wanting to be impregnated by genius chads so shikataganai I guess.
I should get in the habit of Googling "how to renew expiring fed mitm certificate" every few weeks for the microscopic chance the joke might some day pay off big time.
Yea who would want to live in a dusty, arid, brown and yellow wasteland city like that? Certainly not the "Occupy Mars" guy.
The dark theme is nice, btw.
You're just jealous of my sick microwave oven pendant
Lamarckian eugenics!
Note that I was specifically talking about branch names in Git, where it's debatable if the default name "master" even originated from the master/slave nomenclature.
The problematic nature of the term is a lot more evident in other contexts where a counterpart of the "master" is in fact called a "slave". Whether that's reason enough to change the names in any particular instance is not something I'll comment on.