50% of the world’s population lives with very little daily cringe

Here at lemmy, we get more than our recommended daily value of cringe every day from secondhand embarrassment alone. We’re miracle workers.

thinly-veiled

Is it?

Stop giving us reasons to like it: at first I thought meh 🫤, but now you’re making it ironically appealing. 😄

You’ll get over it or you won’t. 🤷

your diet?

Did they fulfill their civic duty? Did they meaningfully fight to defend their cause?

If they fell short of their own expectations, they’ll feel shame.

No, the execution is trash. Comic as a medium should at least show. Some panels of the bucket dripping along the path wouldn’t have made this pure guesswork.

The leaky bucket caused the row of flowers to grow.

I just gotta say the execution in this comic horrible: it neither showed nor told. Just made guesswork.

Central planning economies have ruined the planet disproportionately compared to their liberal, market economy counterparts. Consider the USSR: compared to the US, a better environmental record might be expected due to their command economy. To the contrary

Total emissions in the USSR in 1988 were about 79% of the US total. Considering that the Soviet GNP was only some 54% of that of the USA, this means that the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times more pollution than the USA per unit of GNP.

Their planners considered pollution control

unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization

and

By the 1990s, 40% of Russia’s territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

And this generously glosses over the extent of water contamination, hazardous dumping of toxic & nuclear waste into oceans, etc.

Humans are the problem, and the planet is better off without them.

Irrelevant, because again

1. Justice is not a 0-sum game: generalizing the increase in penalties to any gender hatred accomplishes the same without gender discrimination.

2. Did you know there are other genders in the world? Your bias is showing.

Maybe bring that up with the Italian government.

Not arguing with them, arguing with your immoral defense.

I’m not continuing this conversation with you though.

As if anyone should care? Abandon your argument: it’s clearly not worth defending.

Users began protesting by posting the word “print” under random submissions, leading moderators to lock down all r/Art posts—disabling comments, awards, and new submissions. External platforms also took notice, with X users highlighting the subreddit’s sudden lockdown.

On November 26, the drama reached its peak when r/Art moderators announced their resignation with a simple message: “You win. We all resign.”

Good: leeches all.

The post received over 23,000 downvotes. According to reports, the head moderator removed all other mods in what some described as a “power trip.”

Classic reddit moderator cringe. Look at all their pointless rules: subreddits are the HOAs of the internet.

women are killing their male

Did you know there are other genders in the world? Your bias is showing.

he

Yet more unfounded assumptions.

Since when did numbers matter in defining wrongful conduct as crime?

How about you answer the original question & reflect on the concept of gender discrimination?

And no, brah, I didn’t downvote you. Fun fact: I can’t. Let’s add jumps to conclusions to your list.

To the uncritical, any critic is a troll. To question is to troll.

but extending it to gender in general if that’s not reflective of crime statistics increases the costs of investigation by a lot

So, your defense of gender discrimination is unsubstantiated economic expediency? Do you even pretend to care about morality or equality before the law?

Unresearched claims of increasing “costs of investigation by a lot” don’t justify immorality & violating a universal human right for equal protection of the law. It’s not hard to quit rationalizing the indefensible & admit femicide should have been addressed through a nondiscriminatory law on gendercide.

A bunch of mysoginists were melting down.

As you scientifically deduced from what? Objecting to gender discrimination?

Maybe you need to get over your bias. Justice is not a 0-sum game: generalizing the increase in penalties to any gender hatred accomplishes the same without gender discrimination. They could even give it a snappy name like gendercide.

A bunch of dudes

You knew they were dudes?

melting down

You don’t object to gender discrimination in the law?

Did they do the same for murders due to any gender hatred?

It was already explained, it’s the premise their activism supports by advocating the disparate treatment of female as a slur. From an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.

Moreover, the position they advocate is counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, neither female nor woman is offensive. That includes among females. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word (as is woman).

Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?

Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.

While our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?

Older activists recognized that doesn’t serve them & took a different approach. Against higher odds, black activists reappropriated the word black as a word of pride. Non-heteronormative activists did likewise with the word queer. Instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to make sexist language official, online language police would be wise to learn from the older activists & follow their example.

it’s because it’s extremely often used in such a way that people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females. It’s why you may see the phrase “men and females” thrown around as a response.

Right, so the premise is there’s something wrong with the word that names an entire gender. The campaign isn’t “don’t use ‘men and females’”, it’s “don’t use ‘females’”. They’ll write about Ferengis whenever a suspected non-female uses female: they’re not examining meanings & context to draw critical distinctions. ‘Men and females’ is merely a rationalization.

The effect: female is a slur, yet male isn’t, so female is stigmatized. That disparity raises the impression that femininity has such deficiencies even their name is a term of abuse unworthy of pride, and that females are too frail without society coming to defend them from the adversity of their name. In contrast, masculinity is sufficient for its name not to raise adversity, and even if it did, males have the fortitude for society not to come to their defense. That unequal treatment of words implicates females disfavorably thereby stigmatizing them.

Think who that serves: is opposition to the noun “female” unwittingly subscribing to stigmatization & sexist thinking of those who’d welcome the stigmatization? The language police are playing themselves here.

Treating the word female like male, however, wouldn’t raise such questions & impressions, and it wouldn’t ostensibly support a sexist premise and play into its consequences.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all pejorative terms of mental incapacity went the way of idiot & imbecile? Why shelter derogatory words^[1] from ameliorating?

When a term begins as pejorative and eventually is adopted in a non-pejorative sense, this is called melioration or amelioration. One example is the shift in meaning of the word nice from meaning a person was foolish to meaning that a person is pleasant.

I’m certainly not perfect in that regard, but in principle, the language that we use shapes our thoughts more than we realize

The support for that is weak: the influence is mild & easily overcome. An insult isn’t meant to be productive, it’s supposed to convey contempt & unflattering ideas about the recipient of the insult.