She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that.
Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever.
If you want to claim she’s lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She’s also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
First, Dworkin has never said that and did not think that.
Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we’re going to be talking about feminist views of the 80’s, you’re conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.
All well and good, but the term dictatorship here still refers to a situation where the state apparatus has complete control over the means of production, in other words a total centralisation of power. Indeed in Marxism-Leninism the dictatorship takes the form of a vanguard party forming a single party state. Whichever way you look at it, practical power resides with a very small group of individuals.
The contrast with the eventual stateless communist society, in which power would be completely decentralised, is quite striking. It’s not quite clear to me how Marxist-Leninist theory envisioned the transition from one to the other, although it seems to me there was a general feeling that central economic planning and industrialization would fairly quickly lead to the end of scarcity altogether, which in hindsight seems… very optimistic.
If you ask me, the ideals of communism mostly died around the same time as Lenin. Pretty much all communist states that have existed (and currently exist) are mainly interested in maintaining their own power structures rather than actually working their way towards the idealised communist society. Which pretty much just makes them dictatorships in the classical sense.
Regarding the cognitive dissonance required to A) value decentralization of power, and also B) support the CCP: 🤦
One of the tenets of Marxism-Leninism is that a dictatorship is required to guide the proletariat to communist society (which would be completely stateless). So the dissonance is inherent in Leninist dogma 🤷
Just a mistake I think. Americans are so steeped in gun culture that when they hear calibur, their brain goes immediately to gun calibers. Autocorrect also might play a role.
What if I leave the bowl of cereal for a while, extracting the flavours of the cereal into the milk? Boom, it’s broth now.
But you’re just here arguing about semantics anyway.
Well duh, this is a post about the meaning of soup. We’re all here arguing semantics. Anyway, if you can justify the meaning of “vegetable” by its culinary use in the kitchen, then we might as well shortcut this chain of thinking and use that argument directly for soup.
Clearly cereal is not a soup, going by its culinary use in the kitchen.
Might be talking about the United States specifically. IIRC the constitution denies individual states the right to mint coin or issue bills of credit, that is a prerogative of the federal government.
It would be pretty funny if GPT starts putting licence notices under its answers because that’s what people do in its training data.
protecting their content by licensing it explicitly.
You can do whatever you want, of course. But any license you put on your content here protects it less than not putting any license at all. That’s after all what licenses are for, granting people use of your content.
So you’re not so much protecting your comments, but graciously allowing them to be used for training for non-commercial purposes, where most people are greedily keeping them to themselves. I suppose that’s admirable.
The biggest force in lobbying against these kinds of tax reforms is surely Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform. Grover has an iron grip on the tax policy of the Republican party. Virtually all republicans sign his pledge to oppose any and all tax increases. And they are opposed to anything that makes filling taxes easier:
Tax preparers have a vested financial interest in taxes being difficult, with Intuit even going so far as to say in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that federal and local governments making taxes easier to file was a “a continued competitive threat to our business.” ATR’s interests align with this in that they desire to keep taxes difficult to stoke anti-tax sentiment. That is to say, if paying taxes is “too easy”, then people will be less likely to fight taxes in the way ATR wants.
Norquist and the ATR have publicly argued that things that make tax filing easier on taxpayers constitute an automatic income tax audit on every taxpayer, and serves to keep people uninformed about how taxes work, and was an attempt by the IRS to “socialize all tax preparation in America.” In a 2005 presentation to the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, Norquist representing the ATR argued that if taxpayers did not have to prepare their own taxes, it “would allow the government to raise revenues invisibly.”
It’s a very USA specific thing and people in other countries are often surprised this is such a big deal, because in many countries it’s a non-issue. Mostly because having an ID is so ubiquitous in many places. People are often surprised that many Americans don’t possess ID.
There’s a lot of stuff about the US elections that’s surprising to e.g. Europeans. Why do so many not have ID? Why do you so often have to wait in line for hours? Why do some areas apparently have not enough polling places? Why do I need to register to vote, sometimes repeatedly? Why is it so hard to get time off work to go vote? A lot of these seem like basic requirements for a functioning democracy.
The US election system has a bunch of historical quirks. And also to my eyes there seems to be a conscious effort from some government officials to make people not go vote.
That doesn’t mean energy has a weight.
No, it literally does mean that. If you put light in a box of mirrors the total weight of the box will literally increase by an amount equal to the energy of the photons. If you put some radioactive material in a theoretically perfectly sealed box from which no heat or light could escape, and weigh it while it decays into radiation, the weight will not change.
This applies to all forms of energy. A spring is heavier when compressed. An object gets heavier when you spin it, or heat it up. Sunlight hitting the earth most definitely makes it heavier. In fact, the sun hits the earth with about 4.4*10^16 watts of power, corresponding to about 0.5 kilogram per second.
Come on. The way humans behave in groups is certainly part of human nature. And when we’re talking about solving problems of a society, it is the most relevant part.
What I’m hearing you say is, we can solve our own problems, we just need human nature to be different. Which, well… Good luck.
This isn’t about phones. It’s mainly about cameras recording 4k/8k video, and devices such as the steamdeck storing lots of games.
I agree with the sentiment: a lot of cooking does not require great precision, so a scale is not often necessary. but I think at that point you should be able to dispense with measuring equipment altogether and just go by feel for most things. A lot of cooking for me is throwing an amount into the pan that feels right, and I don’t see a need to measure cups of things.
If I’m baking, accuracy is necessary and I will always reach for the scale.
I guess the point I’m making is that measuring in cups represents a kind of midpoint in the precision-convenience trade-off that I just personally don’t find very useful.
Written on 1 April 1998. definitely a joke, though it does work.
Ironically though, I could see how a misogynist might conflate the two.