Yeah, I was testing how robust the formula was by using the first adjective, curse word, and noun that I could see in my immediate environment. I’m not convinced it holds up.

Nothing much you designated pussy field.

Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Poe’s law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious”.[4]

The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.

The original statement of Poe’s law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]

I assume that’s a reference to the intro screen to Mario 64 where you can pull and deform Mario’d face.

I can’t understand the filing. Did Llama not pay James Earl Jones’s estate?

Page 21 of the ruling:

First, the Enforcement Guidance contravenes Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of “sex” beyond the biological binary: male and female. Although Title VII defines “sex” to also include “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” §2000e(k), the Enforcement Guidance concludes that “sex” under Title VII "includes ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions’ and sexual orientation and gender identity." Enforcement Guidance, §I(A)(5) (emphasis added). Notably, the Guidance uses quotation marks around “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”—but not “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Because neither the plain text of Title VII nor Supreme Court precedent defines Title VII “sex” this broadly. Thus, the Enforcement Guidance lacks statutory or jurisprudential authority to expand Title VII’s definition of “sex” to include these new categories.

Interestingly, this also seems to provide a legal basis to discriminate against straight people and cis people. It’ll be interesting to see how Republicans attempt to close that extra loophole without also closing the loophole for discrimination against LGBTQ people.

I’ve not submitted my DNA to any genealogy sites for testing, but what annoys me about all this is that in order to get as much info about my family tree as possible (for posterity and confirming theorized connections) I SHOULD be testing my parents’s DNA because the oldest family members are the best for connecting to distant relatives, and my parents aren’t gonna live forever. But I can’t get them (or myself) tested, because of considerations like this. This shouldn’t have to be a consideration. But it is, because of greedy bastards and the gombeen politicians who allow stuff like this to be legal.