JJ Husker

gen·der ˈjendər/Submit noun 1. the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). "traditional concepts of gender" synonyms: sex I found it a little conflicting that this source gave a reasonable definition for gender but then listed sex as a synonym. I can accept that gender is more of a societal construct insofar as it refers to the state of being male or female but is not a person's sex dependent upon biological factors. Have we arrived at the point where there is just no objective difference between male and female? Between man and woman? Girl and boy?.....Human and feline?

Near as I can tell we're surrounded by stupidity. On one side you have people like those in North Caroline who think nothing of passing blatantly discriminatory laws and on the other you have people who have abandoned reality and decided whatever they "feel" is the truth and needs to be accepted and accommodated for. Why does it seem the least represented group is those who are not bigots and who are reasonable, sane and acknowledge the existence of fact and truth. Sometimes feels like there are only handful of us left, wasting our time trying to explain to the Emperor that he has no clothes.

There are people who really truly believe and feel they are trans species. As an example, one might believe they are actually a cat. Are they to be taken seriously? Should society make accommodations for them, say install litter boxes for them in public restrooms? Or do we need to wait a couple more years until the progressive movement pushes this also into the mainstream? Seriously, how is this different? Or is it not different. I know what I think about it but I am really curious how somebody who feels different than me looks at it. Can somebody explain it to me? http://louderwithcrowder.com/new-reality-woman-claims-she-was-born-a-cat/#.VzVVIZ9MGBY A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. Is this just not a thing anymore?

Strangely/Against all logic, I believe Trump supports transgender bathroom access. You may be right. I was referring more to the general thought process than any position on this specific issue. People will lash out in odd ways when their values and beliefs start getting ignored and abused.

I am ashamed at how totally and completely f'd up this country is right now. Like him or not (and I don't) it is fully understandable how a guy like Trump can be in the position he is. People are fed up with ridiculous PC crap like this. And if you don't believe PC is a real thing and don't like to see things blamed on it, come on in here and make a fool of yourself rationalizing this moronic BS. I mean if it's good enough for the general public at Target, surely it's good enough for our young daughters in school. Right? Please show us the way oh wise ones who were supporting this crap in the previous posts.

No way Sanders' plans make it through congress. Obamacare was a cakewalk compared to the kind of economy-killing stuff Sanders wants to do. I like that Sanders thinks out of the box and I like his anti-establishment stance, but I don't like the fact that, as you so aptly put it, 'unicorn math and fairy dust' are required for it all to work. Which makes it confusing to me why people don't think he's electable or would be a good President. He's got the honesty, integrity, consistency, and idealism that every other major candidate lacks, and if his policies are wild and would never actually work (as in would never actually be able to become policy), then still put him in there. No harm no foul. If honesty, integrity, consistency, and idealism is all that is required for President of the United States, then just elect me and I'll work on getting my idealism up a bit. I'm sure I could also come up with some hairbrained schemes that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through congress. I realize all the candidates this cycle suck big time but maybe we (the citizens and voters) need to get/keep our expectations above gutter trash levels. Ha, we'd just be even more disappointed likely.

Been trying to stay out of this because a few people have decided to rewrite history and cast aspersions on the motives of a great man and the best thing that ever happened to Husker football. I really don't want to join the pissing contest but this needs to be said. If I thought for one second that TO brought LP back to the team and played him only because he wanted to win, that would be the moment I was no longer a fan of Nebraska football. It would end right there with that thought. Some of you have conveniently forgotten or are painfully unaware that was not the standard back in that time period. Players were given 2nd and 3rd chances. That's the way it was across the board. You can't apply today's standard to things that happened before that was commonplace. I've also read enough of Tom's thoughts and motivations to know that he absolutely did what he did primarily to help LP. It is way too easy to look at it in hindsight and say it was wrong. Hell Tom has even admitted that in hindsight he would have done it differently. I'm sure wanting to win and play the best RB he had available played into it a little bit but, if you really believe he brought him back and played him primarily or only to win, you're full of sh#t and don't know or understand jack about Tom Osborne or the history of Husker football. Period. So take that bull crap someplace else. It's actually sad and embarrassing. That is the kind of crap somebody that grew up a CU Buffs fan in Colorado likes to believe because they have been brainwashed by the morons around them with that wrong headed version of events. Problem is its dead wrong and you are embarrassing yourselves. Just stop. I think we all agree now, TO incuded, that it was the wrong way to handle and nothing was going to save LP from himself or his upbringing. But for godsakes, don't crucify and vilify the man for attempting what he thought would help the poor kid.

You want I should make a certain "Randy" disappear? Just blink once for yes or twice for no. Okay, gotcha.

They do have a Runza there....I think.

I'm sure the feeling is mutual even though I question your authority to collectively speak for any town. Anybody with 8+ wins likely isn't going to Scottsbluff voluntarily.

This dumpster fire of a thread hasn't burned itself out yet? #infiniteenergysource

Oh the amount of words that have been wasted on the past 15 years of our coaching woes. And amazingly somebody would be impressed with Riley if only he would emulate what Bo did here. /facepalm

Thanks guys.

I just knew that "....under a f'n rock" comment was going to pay dividends eventually.

It's a fairly loaded question. Any self respecting Nebraska fan wants the team to play well, win the games they should, and win some that maybe they shouldn't. People can pick apart, either way, if you are or aren't willing to trade a big win for a stupid loss. If the scenario is beating tOSU in Columbus but losing to somebody like Illinois or Maryland at home, I would say that wouldn't be the worst trade off, if we played well and did what we were supposed to in all other games. But, if it goes like last year, one big win wouldn't mean much. I mean really, how much does that MSU win mean today? Bubkus.

I am shocked there were not people calling for his castration Oh, I'm sure there is somewhere. But this doesn't seem like the type of thing that would get too many overly upset here on good ole HB. Pretty receptive community for indecent exposure apparently....ha.

It's refreshing to see they got one of these deals right. Too often they double down on the stupid.

That is BS You must be a Hillary supporting liberal. I'll do a study, if it confirms it I'll publish.

I'm not that we'll versed in how these things work, so Thanks for the explanation dudeguyy. However, after reading their hypothesis and the general tone and language of the rest of their explanation, I was pretty well convinced this thing wouldn't have seen the light of day had it not supported their preconceived notions and that it would be extremely simple to make a claim against any group and get a result you could claim supported your hypothesis. Basically their study was just more of the same not really profound BS they were supposedly being objective about. Makes me wonder if they hadn't attempted this 5 times prior without the result they desired but the 6th time was a charm.

I found their prediction rather telling; "We predict that conservatives (in contrast to liberals) have a higher tendency for pseudo-profound bullsh#t receptivity." And whaddya know, those were the results they got. Science! Why, why was that their prediction? Because they went into it thinking conservatives and the 3 republicans mentioned are full of BS (which they are) and obviously because they think the opposite of liberals and 3 dem candidates (even though they are full of BS as well). No way, absolutely no way they would've let the results show anything different. Like I said- Science.

More evidence of the Vox Smug American Liberalism article that BRB posted a couple weeks ago???

Those charges are ridiculous. It was a f'n I'll advised prank. Make him pay for the photoshopping and replacement expenses of replacing all pictures and give him a little community service to drive the point home. 70 charges of indecent exposure? Yeah, lets ruin this kids life and get him lsited as a sex offender to boot. Common sense has left the building folks.