Comment on Anon studies human behavior

• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  A lot of women I know get the ick

  And a lot don’t. Icks aren’t valid reasons & can be unjustified.

  We all can read context as written without free associating extra assumptions. The context doesn’t indicate offensive use of females.

  If you read what someone wrote, twist it into something else, & judge them for it, that is unjustified. What good does it promote?

  More broadly

  if you want an answer

  wasn’t given. As stated before

  Regardless of motive, the act is the same: indiscriminately picking problems over females. If everyone did that, females would be generally accepted as a dirty, toxic word.

  The question remains: what good is advanced by treating females like a dirty, toxic word?

  source

  • boletus@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    None at all, and the real argument wasn’t that females is a dirty toxic word. It’s the context in which it is used.

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The context in OP where females was used inoffensively?

      You haven’t pinned down the problem with the context of the word: I don’t think you can. All I think you have are opinions & assumptions unsupported by context.

      Either the context or the word has a problem. If it’s not the context, then it’s the word, which means we’re really arguing about treating females as a dirty, toxic word.

      If it is the context, then you can identify that problem (in a way that clearly sets it apart from inoffensive uses of the noun female): it’s puzzling no one has so far.

      source

      • boletus@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The context is a 4chan post about not understanding the behaviour of women. I’m not a woman, I don’t find it offensive, but you can definitely make some educated guesses or conclusions about why it would give some women the ick.

        Ps. Don’t take it too seriously most people are taking the piss

        source