“Balthazar is an angel of Heaven who fought alongside Castiel and Uriel. Castiel thought that he had died in battle. In fact, Balthazar faked his death to hide his departure from Heaven, and took a number of powerful artifacts, including the Staff of Moses and Lot’s Salt, with him. He has been on Earth enjoying a rather hedonistic lifestyle.”
"As Dean and Bobby watch over Sam, who has been unconscious since Castiel dissolved the wall in his mind that was preventing him remembering Hell, and his year of being soulless. Balthazar arrives and betrays Castiel by giving up Crowley’s hiding place.
Castiel confronts Balthazar. He says that Dean is coming, and someone among them is a traitor. Balthazar asks him who it is, and Castiel tells him that he doesn’t know, but he wants Balthazar to investigate. While the other angel is distracted, Castiel teleports behind him and stabs him through the back with an angel blade, killing him."
No, it depends on the outcome of all races, because until (hopefully just after this election), they’ve all had the same outcome in this respect.
Does it?
The “glass ceiling” is the barrier beyond which women can not advance. If Hillary wins, she breaks the ceiling. It can’t be unbroken, even if another woman never wins the presidency. It may not be the most meaningful symbol, but it’s certainly not false. (And I don’t think she’ll be the last - having a female president will make it more likely in the future - like Obama’s presidency, it’ll normalize the idea. People will be able to see that black or female presidents are just presidents - that’s not a small thing when a sizable number of people believe there are fundamental differences.)
Well, they have. More than that, representation matters. Seeing people take these roles, even in fiction, has been shown to have real impacts.
If you read it, that’s the joke. It’s the most endorse-y non-endorsement ever.
Nah, the giant cockroaches after us will tell their nymphs, “Stay away from those other roaches, they have yellow thoraxes!”
Show me. I’m convinceable. I’m not denying reality, I’m expressing skepticism. As in, you can’t prove me wrong, because I’m asking for evidence of a position rather than taking the opposing view.
I guess I must be the only person on the internet who doesn’t memorize, with footnotes, every single study I’ve ever read over my entire lifetime, given how often I see people demand citations. My memory must be really terrible compared to everyone else’s.
A friend regularly takes part in a similar race where the finish line is a car that follows the race at a set and occasionally increasing speed. You finish when the car passes you.
One suffices. A review article would be amazing. But I find that most people are just learning this with me and haven’t done any reading up until they furiously punched something into google so they could find the first thing that agrees with their worldview. Which is not how literature research is conducted. So if you’ve really been doing the reading and you know something, you should tell me. Because I’ve done lit research before and I tend to at least know a name. I’ve not even done that much research but I can tell you if you’re interested in Alzheimer’s chemotherapies you should Google Anne Crouch. Not my field, but I’ve done some reading.
With psychology I tend to be more skeptical because they have a reproducibility crisis, but if there’s reproduction, I can rest easy.
By the way, seeing Neil DeGrasse Tyson succeed at science inspires me and I’m not black. This goes to support @KathyPartdeux’s article that diversity helps even if specific role model matching doesn’t. My bias isn’t to disbelieve, but to believe. But I’m not going to fool myself either. Now I’ve spent more than enough time in this thread for today when I should be doing other things, so I’ll be back if someone wants to drop some interesting relevant knowledge, but I’m approaching the maximum time I’ve allowed myself on the BBS and so far I’ve spent basically all of it telling people that what they think I’m saying, and what I said in black and white don’t match.
I remember the converse, too, and I wonder if it isn’t applicable this election. Back when Bush Jr got his second term, I recall people around me saying “Well, let him have it, by the time he does what he wants people will hate Republicans so much we won’t have another Republican for 20 years.” While that wasn’t 100% true, the party continues in a downward spiral, and prospects are pretty bleak.
With all the pragmatism talk about Clinton, that she “isn’t ideal”, but she’s better than nothing, etc. the same situation is there. While it’s insipid that she will be bogged down in “investigations” for the entirety of her presidency… well, she will be. Is it pragmatic to choose someone you know will have these problems? I won’t even go into her foreign policy, but this is a presidency that could end up being called the the Hague (not that she’d go), or getting us into a world war.
Sometimes if we want to break a glass ceiling, establish a role model, start a new era, the choice we make to do that is important. You pick the right person, it destroys bias and the minds of the masses evolve. You pick the wrong person, you cement bias, and your choice actually makes the road harder for those who come after. If pragmatism is the watchword, I am not sure Clinton is the pragmatic choice for lasting change. I think a lot of Republicans are saying the same thing about Clinton that those people were saying about Bush Jr.
Unfortunately, as a society we have glass ceilings all over the place. What HRC is doing is breaking (arguably) the highest one. That IS significant, and it IS important.
This. OK, so Hillary is a seemingly “better” choice than trump, but really Yale Record, she isn’t anything to crow about. Just another life-term Politician (notice capital P) willing to lie and blag their way to power for power’s sake - but who just happens to be female. But then again, I’m from the UK and we’ve had many glorious years of Thatcher (and now Thatcher-lite™ Theresa May) to pop our joy-bubble at the shattering of a glass ceiling.
