- Registrado
- 29 de Oct, 2023
Sigue el video de abajo para ver cómo instalar nuestro sitio como una aplicación web en tu pantalla de inicio.
Nota: Esta función puede no estar disponible en algunos navegadores.
He might get some doughnuts out of the deal, but I doubt much leisure. Those trailers all had mortgages that I doubt were substantially paid down before the sale.I think he's sold off his trailers to keep him in doughnuts and leisure
First paragraph and he's already into "well if you don't think troons are women I can't change your mind" and starts flinging flat earther type as hominims. I know he was never great at this but his skills of argumentation have gotten even fucking worse.Rhys article is now free.
Ver archivo adjunto 9169701
Ver archivo adjunto 9169702L
Here is the article.
Narcs don't suffer humiliation. It will have angered him because it provided so much terf fodder butI wonder how much of a blow to his ego that was.
He'll have justified it to himself as it all being down to the assistant being unprofessional, unfit etc. Nothing to do with him, he was perfect. At the time I was surprised he didn't try to sue for some kind of reputational damage or injury but I assume his self preservation instinct took over.Rhys is a true narcissist.
Back then, he thought he was untouchable.He's now actually spending time to write an article when he couldn't be arsed to write a book to save his career,
He probably decided that the whole event was transphobic – for only hiring assistants strong enough to handle "cisnormative women's body types".He'll have justified it to himself as it all being down to the assistant being unprofessional, unfit etc. Nothing to do with him, he was perfect.
Local archive as pdf. I've never read an "academic" article that starts with "I'm really tired of repeating myself".
For a long time he was untouchable. He still would be if he had written that book and attended staff meetings.Back then, he thought he was untouchable.
His whole argument has always been "if you think transwomen are women then of course they should compete in female sports". So his entire premise ends up falling apart due to the vast majority (even a lot of those "allies") actually don't believe transwomen are women.First paragraph and he's already into "well if you don't think troons are women I can't change your mind" and starts flinging flat earther type as hominims. I know he was never great at this but his skills of argumentation have gotten even fucking worse.
The whole thing is just "I, I, I', it's bonkers.I've never read an "academic" article that starts with "I'm really tired of repeating myself".
Suppose someone asks you whether the bank is open on Saturday morning. You’re confident that it is, and you have good reasons for your confidence. (You remember its being open on Saturday a few months back.) But do you know the bank is open? If it’s clear in context that nothing much hangs on your answer, then you may be fully entitled to say what you think: “Yes, the bank is open.” But this sort of outright assertion is appropriate only if you know what you’re talking about. So, in this “low stakes” context, your belief amounts to knowledge. But now suppose that it’s clear in context that your friend will miss a rent payment if he shows up on Saturday and the bank is closed. In that context it could be inappropriate for you to say outright, “The bank is open.” And that suggests that whether your belief amounts to knowledge depends on the practical values at stake in the conversation. Philosophers disagree about this conclusion, but that is a subtle problem in epistemology.