"Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, backwards, in high heels, and without pockets"

Surely you can't be serial.

What if he's just an asshole with dementia?

Looking for a logical explanation might be a fool's errand

You're welcome to DM me, if it helps.

You're welcome to DM if you wish. I understand entirely your point about skeets being a difficult medium for complex ideas.

I'm surprised it's as much as half. I watch some Finding Your Roots, and it's pretty much inevitable that anybody white whose family have been in the US long enough has some African heritage, and vice versa. That's another reason the whole "one drop of blood" standard in the South was stupid.

My wife's family are all from Southern Italy and Sicily. When her father did a DNA test, he found that he had about 5% Arabic heritage. Sicily in particular is an absolute melting pot of the Med.

I'm 50% Ashkenazi (which itself is not as homogeneous as many people think), 50% English mutt: English, Welsh, Norse, Cornish, ...

Chronic anxiety?

*hate, not had. D'oh.

Let's also not forget Operation Paperclip, which whitewashed the Nazi records of "sufficiently valuable" engineers and scientists.

Prove me wrong. I'm not making this up, it's right there in black and white for everybody to read.

Bonus fun fact: Jaguar started out as the Swallow Sidecar Company before becoming SS Cars in 1935 and introducing the SS Jaguar. After WWII [oddly, not during] they renamed the company Jaguar, for reasons obvious to everybody except Elon Musk.

Anyway, the SS Jaguar 100 is an amazingly beautiful car

"Sir, it's not the vehicle."

"Sir, it's not the vehicle."

BTW, I had the term "scientific racism" because it sounds like it is validating the concept, but unfortunately that is the term in common use, even by critics of it.

Indeed. If people were dogs, we would all be the same breed. There is more genetic variation within the population of Sweden than between the average Swede and the average Nigerian (to pick two random countries). "Population genetics" as a basis for racism is silly. But so is all "scientific racism"

You are not engaging in good faith debate.

Instead of responding to the (valid) claim that women are less prone to these behaviors, you leapt to the fallacy of the excluded middle and hyperbole.

If you want to be taken seriously, respond to what was actually said, not the voices in your head.

As usual, Luigi gets left out.