If the thing in question is changed, and the only part of us that can directly affect is our opinion, then I would call that a social construction.

We define what existence is. We have all collectively agreed that being here in the perceptible world means that something exists. We could choose to include the imaginary in its definition and then would be able to say that dragons and wizards exist. We could also choose to say something has to be present in 4 dimensions to exist, in which case we’d not be able to say that anything exists.

A social construct is simply an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society which includes the dictionary itself. I’d also say that these definitions are often useful at allowing us to communicate and cooperate with one another, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t make up the idea.

Our naming and classification of things is all socially constructed. So yes, our categorization of edible things as food is a social construct, but our physical need to fuel our bodies with something digestible is not. But also, using it that way makes existence a social construct, so it depends on how rigid you want to be.

That’s just a safety tip

Children also don’t feel shame about being naked until they gain the knowledge of sexuality. Parents would probably notice a child covering themselves up after an encounter of that nature.

I’m also assuming the story would be altered in a number of ways to change the meaning to the biblical one.

For a dog example, a black lab (with dark skin) is more genetically similar to a yellow lab (with light skin) than a black pomeranian (with dark skin).

In which case I would point to this part of my comment.

And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot.

That and (speculation) I’m pretty sure most of the people making this movie are liberals themselves.

That didn’t happen in the movie though, there was no next step taken. America pitches the idea and the man in charge is about to say no until another man says it will make a lot of money. There’s no implication of her being promoted or anything. The Mattel leadership doesn’t change, the patriarchy doesn’t change, and Barbieland didn’t fundamentally change either. A couple characters changed their outlooks on themselves, which isn’t a bad thing but it’s also not that profound. The movie identifies some bigger problems but ends up just accepting them and moving on. And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot. To be clear, I thought it was a fun movie, I just don’t think it’s as groundbreaking as many make it out to be.

Also there ended up being no point to the Mattel board drama. It didn’t affect the plot at all and at the end it was still all men making decisions based on profit.

Perfect liberal movie, lip service without changing a thing.

Why not just a second white noise, or other white noise adjacent sound? Even if they’re both looped they’re not going to have the same loop length and that will be a changing rhythm that way.

I don’t think you’re saying anything contrary but I wanted to make one point clear.

The democracy we live under is not unique to capitalism. In fact, our current system has less democracy than an anarchist system would. Also capitalism doesn’t have any requirement to be democratic. Whereas with anarchism, any dictatorship is directly against the core tenets of the system.

That being said, (I have not read enough theory to know for sure but) anarchism doesn’t necessarily preclude the idea of having managers or even CEO’s. It does preclude those positions having total power and control of an enterprise though. Dismantling the hierarchical structure of modern society doesn’t mean having someone be a coordinator of a larger group isn’t helpful. It just means that job isn’t given greater power or more significance than those being coordinated. Our current idea of a CEO is very dictatorial, but that’s not how it has to be.

I guess I wouldn’t consider hormones or nutrients drugs, but the nature of the question would rule out supplements I think.

The weather lately has been depressing and angering. I keep trying to get people around angry about it too, but just like everyone else it’s hard to feel like it’s possible to get anything done. That’s why we need to band together

If it were federally legalized they wouldn’t have to use alternate language and/or the FCC could require certain terminology when producing ads.

My cat loves spicy. She’s licked chili powder off my plate

I want to be clear, the way the community is named is not, “look at this sexy young woman” it is, “look at this nude of what looks like a high school girl, isn’t that hot?”

Also, this is more of cultural problem that needs some societal retraining to fix for real.

Legal =/= good

Legal =/= not bad

And no not eliminate, but it would discourage the behavior.

I would love if we had a president like the guy from Designated Survivor, someone who cared more about doing the best job for the people without his ego being the focus. Which actually might also be true about Comacho

My routine is, in this order, Lemmy, Mastodon, Tumblr

There was one thrift shop I went to in college that would have original vinyl pressings for like $5. I think my favorite was a compilation of performances of the 1970 isle of wight festival, which includes the final show hendrix did before he died.