Recent content by kurczak

Hm, this one is for sponsoring a visa, but there is a similar one for sponsoring a green card (I-864). It doesn't say you cant apply for any welfare ever though It says that if you apply for any means-tested welfare, the sponsor's income/wealth will be considered as yours. So you both have to be broke. I'm quite sure even this expires at the very latest when you become a citizen.

eddiemccandless said:

I was made to sign up a piece of paper that states that I am not eligible for any form of government assistance, ever. So that is also something to be aware of (again, that might not necessarily be a thing for the lottery).

Click to expand...

Wut. Do you have a copy of the form? What's its number?

I think Bilgesi's parents won the specifically American GC lottery, not the "move wherever you want" card But yes, it's not going to be a picnic as unskilled laborers.

For all of the states, there's FBI statistics, census.gov, Bureau of Labor Statistics for really raw data, but that's gigatons of data to sift through, if you/they have really no subjective preference to narrow it down. Most (all?) states will have their won crime and labor stats compiled by their respective departments and even big cities or metro areas will have their own. NYPD goes as far as letting you see a map with the location of each individual crime scene.

For healthcare, it's a cluster**** of federal, state and local programs. Massachusetts has famously(?) near universal coverage and the state pays for everything for people under certain income. NY City, not state, also has pretty generous programs for low income resident and I'm sure it's not the only one. But I don't where I would point you for some raw, aggregate data.

Much better.

Adorno said:

Sorry. Used the cause/effect analogy wrong.
I mean some girls want to change gender, and then when asked for a cause, they refer to porn, when in reality they would have changed gender regardless. (I'm guessing. Also don't know what cis is).

Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you meant. I don't think the girls consciously formulated it like that, it was probably more of a speculation by the author. I don't remember.

Cis is Latin for "in front of" or "within" and it is kind of the opposite of "trans" which in Latin literally means "beyond" or "on the outside", so it's used as term for just plain men and women. The whole transgender thing has a poor terminology that doesn't make much sense etymologically, but it is what it is.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said:

don't worry, that's bull**** too.

Click to expand...

Well, that's settled, then.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

Statistically no

Click to expand...

Unironically sad.

Adorno said:

About porn: that sounds like a very narrow view. At best it's putting the effect before the cause, just to give the change of gender a rationale. There must be a ton of other causes. (No amount of porn of any kind would make me want to change gender/sex). There's also plenty of 'vanilla' porn.

(A personal experience is that girls I've been with have been very masochistic, and my boundaries have been pushed, not theirs.)

Click to expand...

How is it putting effect before cause? So, in reality first girls become trans and then they travel in time, become cis again and watch abuse porn?

MadVader said:

Maybe they got the impression that women have it easier during their childhood.

Click to expand...

Childhood proper, probably. Puberty definitely not.

I read something the other way around that girls are becoming trans en masse, because they see the free and ubiquitous porn and think to themselves that if that's what girls do, then they would rather not be girls.

I don't know about its effect on trans rates, but (mainstream) porn has definitely gotten so much more brutal. Do young people even have just sex anymore.

That was always William (before he got bald) And what kind of a royal name is Harry anyway. Imagine "King Harry" lmao.

Erybody wanna be a bodybuilda, but don nobody wanna lif' no heavy ass weights.

I thought it was "Why I'm not celebrating Putin this year". Shame.

K, as long as it's cool and hip to cancel for banalities, can Youtube please remove from their homepage that annoying "hah i'm so quirky, because i have thick rim glasses" girl, whose name is, for crying out loud, SS Sniper Wolf. How is that not a cancelable offense?

MadVader said:

Imagine having an executive that sometimes like to go on racist tirades on social media. And you are not allowed to get rid of him because that doesn't affect job performance. If an employee embarrasses an employer, they have a right to fire them.
You don't like the consequences, don't do the crime, as Eddie rightly said. This is what the right keeps telling the left over law and order topics, but when the roles are reversed they cry injustice.

Click to expand...

This happens like what once every 50 years? CEOs stopped saying the n-word etc (in public) long before the current cancel culture wave.

Ignoring Americam where you can basically fire anyone anytime for any reason or without giving one (unless the job is unionized), top level manager positions are usually considered "functions" not "employments" or something to that effect and can be fired willy nilly anyway. That's fine. The CEO is to a large extent a face of the company, just like an actor (who are also almost never technically employees) is.

But this is now massively overflowing and affecting proper employees engaging in quasi-private speech outside of their job that no one would even notice, if some bitter, mentally ill activist didn't waste his life combing through people's facebooks and snitching to mommy dearest, I mean, the teacher, er, the employer. .

I'm not talking about when a "celebrity" gets "fired" because she wore an antelbellum debutante dress to a costume party. That's demented in its own right, but I'm talking about when you're a literally who and get fired from an actual job as say a shift manager at Domino's or kicked out of college because you posted a bad word on facebook. Employers should not be allowed to fire people for reasons unrelated to job performance. Simple as.

MadVader said:

Cancel culture is when you are being ******* in public and people don't like that, so you get fired, but you make many new ******* friends and then you all fight for the right to be assholes.

Click to expand...

Oh no no, cancel culture is when you love workers' rights so much, that you advocate for a corporation's right to fire people for reasons completely unrelated to the performance of their job.

What does it matter what his degrees are in. Either he's right or he's not. He presented his claims for literal review by anyone who can be bothered. Personally couldn't care less if he posted it on 4chan in a "prestigious" journal.

From the "debunking" part: There is a reason courts do not admit circumstantial evidence. Yes they do, all the time. You should have consulted muh legal experts with all the degrees and medals instead of cop soap operas