It's been all downhill since Veronica on Gopher.

Bless your heart, you think I'm arguing with you.

That is fucking hilarious! Are you a comedian?

Smallpox paints a compelling argument for vaccination. We eradicated this truly horrifying disease through vaccination.

Folks, listen to the scientists dedicating their lives to fighting diseases and bettering human lives. Don't listen to charlatans trying to get their hands in your pocket.

None of those things were what I said. The student wrote a shitty essay and received a failing score. That is all there is to this. It isn't about 1A rights at all. By the way, writing "God wants..." is not citing the bible.

And there is a way to follow the instructions in a well written manner. Consider the following. "In Matthew 7:1 (KJV) Jesus is quoted as saying 'Judge not, that ye be not judged.' As a Christian, I thought about this verse after reading the assigned paper... [cont disc of paper & reaction]"

But the failing mark was not due to the student's personal beliefs, it was due to turning in a terrible essay. A college level essay should rise above a statement of a student's beliefs. It is possible to write a clear and well-sourced essay on a subject regardless of your belief in the subject.

But just looking at the paper and the grading comments, this instance isn't about being personally judgmental. The student turned in a very poorly written essay. It deserved to be given a failing mark for that, regardless of any religious content. 2/2

When I was a TA, the student assessments at the end of the year were sometimes quite personally judgmental. Some were positive ("I liked what he wore") and a few were negative ("he needs to lose a few pounds"). I ignored all of that shit and focused on the feedback on my teaching performance. 1/2

As someone who was raised in a sect that considered Southern Baptists too liberal, I can second what you said. Evangelical christians come in several stripes, bit it is easy to find many who are too fucking judgmental.

What the fuck is the difference between "a way of saying" and "a verbal crutch to convey that?" Those are exactly the same fucking thing!

it’s so weird to look around and realize like, tech and media are materially worse than a decade ago

The Times adjusted it's headlines, but not until after other media started reporting the links as factual using the Times.

How comfortable should editors be with headlines that amplify the claims of an unverified claim, not subject to peer review, by a known vaccine skeptic?