Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1513262)

All girls with undercuts are lesbians. Change My Mind.

Originally Posted by Joe Perez (Post 1513254)

This is where a sense of perspective is valuable.

For every one which is so far mind-fucked that they have no hope of fitting into a functional society (or a coach-class airplane seat), there are dozens if not hundreds who have sexy butch haircuts and are entirely capable of behaving as normal human beings provided a sufficiently non-polarized environment.

It is tempting to characterize the masses according to the extreme. But as in most situations, the extreme represents a radical deviance wherein the masses tend to be within 1 standard deviation of normal.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...1c28bb1521.png

Originally Posted by olderguy (Post 1513266)

But; they are very pretty,

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1513262)

All girls with undercuts are lesbians. Change My Mind.

Originally Posted by rleete (Post 1513315)

Now I'm the one who is confused. They are merely average, at best. Tats and piercings look slutty to me.

Are we seeing the same picture?

Originally Posted by shuiend (Post 1513316)

Tats and Piercings look hot to me. Maybe you should just not be old and prude.

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1513262)

All girls with undercuts are lesbians. Change My Mind.

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1513204)

---

Does the American Flag Offend You? Stanford Thinks It Might

TLDR: An administrator encouraged Sigma Chi to take down the American flag flown in front of its house in order to improve its image on campus.

...

In protest of Mr. Z’s suggestion, the house declined to remove the flag, instead choosing to replace it with an even bigger one. Some members, of course, abstained from the discussion about and decision to purchase a bigger flag. The following day, by Lozano’s doing, Sigma Chi upgraded from a three-by-five-foot flag to a four-by-six-foot flag. The former flag was then framed and placed on display inside the house. This decision was, in Lozano’s words, a “silent but visible protest” against the classification of the American flag as a potentially stigmatizing symbol by a member of the Stanford administration.

Having laid out Lozano’s narrative of this incident, I will now offer my own commentary.

This series of events, known to few, is concerning on multiple levels. One can imagine a justification for opposing a foreign flag being flown on one’s own soil, though I believe that such a condemnation would be ultra-nationalist and antagonistic. One could also reasonably consider the display of an authoritarian regime’s flag to be insulting and hostile – be it a flag representing Nazi Germany, The Confederacy, or Apartheid South Africa. One can likewise anticipate the classification of a sectarian flag as illegal – be it that of Catalonian or Chechen separatists. However, there is no reason why hoisting the American flag, on American soil, at an American institution, is offensive.

Every individual – American or not – has a right to take issue with any and all policies and actions that the U.S. government takes. I am not discouraging criticism of, protest against, or opposition to U.S. government policies. In fact, I encourage such scrutiny. To classify the American flag on American soil as offensive or jingoistic, however, is an entirely separate phenomenon which implies the condemnation of the United States at large.

There is an evident aversion amongst private institutions in the Bay Area to affiliate or partner with the American government. Be it Google employees protesting collaboration with the military on AI development, the absence of the national anthem at Stanford’s 2018 graduation ceremony, the elimination of the American flag from student organization logos, or Stanford’s framing itself as a global rather than American institution, the pattern is clear. Affiliation or partnership with the U.S. government is neither popular nor sexy. Patriotism in the Bay is not praised; indeed, at this rate of pariah-hood, it may soon perish.

However, the presently taboo nature of national pride is shortsighted. The distinction between our timeless political institutions (and their hallowed symbols) and the country’s leaders and policies at any given moment in history is elementary but crucial. Condemnations of patriotism fail to recognize that the United States’ institutions have and will continue to outlive unpopular leaders. This fact alone is cause for significant national pride. The vilification of our nation and its symbols is damning for the social fabric of American society. The current political climate has destroyed the last remnants of civic unity and patriotism.

But enough with the ominous platitudes. Next time you hear someone degrade a symbol of the United States – whether in the form of a flag, the Constitution, or the national anthem – you can defend the principles of this nation through oration or just go out and, like Sigma Chi, buy a bigger one.

---

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1513483)

The big [fake] glasses trend needs to stop too.