lmmarsano

@lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft is is bed with Google now, in a worse, more OS-integrated way than Mozilla was. This timeline sucks.⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Unless they state the risk & danger and support those claims with something concrete & rational (instead of leaving it to ungrounded speculation), it seems like peanuts. I like to set parameters around my anxiety & keep it real.

  For decades, we had phonebooks publish names, addresses, phone numbers, and the sky didn’t fall.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft is is bed with Google now, in a worse, more OS-integrated way than Mozilla was. This timeline sucks.⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  alt text for accessibility?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  You had me pondering…yes, quotation dash: it is a thing in English, just less common!

  Please disregard what I wrote before: you had it almost correct, but use em dashes — as you suggested before. Some OSes offer nice character pickers for less common punctuation: for example, Windows summons it with WindowsKey+.. Apologies.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics

  Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys

  -first
  
  -second
  
  -third
  

  looks obviously bad whereas

  - first
  - second
  - third
  

  looks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview.

  I don’t think this is asking much.

  If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.

  I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Seriously, it was all the rage back when I joined my first instance.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  clever

  You use that word…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds

  when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined

  The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.

  If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  -Why there are pyramids in Egypt?

  -Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.

  how to write lists

  markdown - Why there are pyramids in Egypt? - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum. renders to > - Why there are pyramids in Egypt? > - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.

  Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft is is bed with Google now, in a worse, more OS-integrated way than Mozilla was. This timeline sucks.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Because my precious data bellyachers & tinfoil hatters basically.

  Am I the only one who wonders how to get this in Edge? I like my shit integrated.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft is is bed with Google now, in a worse, more OS-integrated way than Mozilla was. This timeline sucks.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  photograph of monitor

  Does OP know about screenshots or alt text? 🤦

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I throw hands (grabbing my soup)⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I see lots of people on the left type “punch a Nazi” online

  “punch a Nazi” reads better than a more realistic “throw a feeble, limp-wristed nudge that hardly registers at a nazi”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨*pat pat pat*⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s a chick: they just waddle, play with hay, and do flappies while waiting for their parents to occasionally feed them. Albatross chicks are huge.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨*pat pat pat*⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Watch conservationists weigh & feed an underweight chick (not yet fledged, not too happy).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Alternatively⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Does it beat carrying these & wearing them in all orifices at all times?

  rapex condom

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Luv Me Chips, 'ate Seagulls...⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I love these guys. Just look at them

  • shoplift & demolish a bag of chips
  • shoplift a sandwich
  • hover over a sightseer to snatch a bite of ice cream
  • wait from a regular spot to swipe from a pedestrian.
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hell⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Or maybe your written communication is weak.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Bait or r*ta*d*ti*n. Call it.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Or go the TikTok route and say “unsmarted” like a goddamn tool.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hell⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I told them if they have a Gmail account, just use the + addressing feature, otherwise, just create a Gmail account.

  If they couldn’t get a login reset sent to their email, then that’s broken. If they have to create a new email account just for you, that’s bullshit, too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  So how young are the girls OP is upset about not accepting his friend request? If there’s concern that some people would refer to them as “girls” instead of “young women” the grossness of the statement stands.

  I don’t know & neither do you: the words are vague as you likely know. A sensible interpretation: they’re discussing girls who could be young women & vice versa.

  They didn’t say they were upset.

  If there’s concern that some people would refer to them as “girls” instead of “young women” the grossness of the statement stands.

  Not really, and still not answering the question: you do that an awful lot.

  You’ve never encountered older women who want to be called girls or girls who want to be called women or people sensitive about their age who find the wrong word offensive? They averted that minefield.

  You go on this long when people make grammatical errors like using the wrong “their” in their posts? Or is it just excusing language the dehumanizes women that gets you fired up?

  You’re digressing & excusing treating females like a dirty, toxic word by nitpicking any mention of it. I’m not here (1) pretending the use of females is offensive, (2) failing to properly articulate how the problem isn’t the word when (3) we all can see the context isn’t offensive.

  The question remains: what good does that advance? I understand why misogynists would want you to keep promoting their usage of that word: if everyone stigmatizes the noun female, then it becomes generally accepted as a dirty, toxic word, so yay misogyny.

  Nonetheless, they’re the minority, and the common usage of noun female isn’t offensive until we change it.

  Anytime someone says “can’t use females anymore, misogynists use it” instead of resisting that by reasserting the more common usage, they’re letting a minority like those misogynists take over & decide the meaning of language for the majority. (Unwitting) accomplices take capitulation a step further by policing language to promote & enforce misogynist meanings: regardless of intent, that’s you.

  Language & cultural conventions take cooperation: stop cooperating with & caving to misogynists. Definitely stop actively supporting them.

  If you’re going to advocate for a cause, then stop incompetently betraying it. Your cause deserves better than incompetent advocates like you. So tell us: what good is that language policing advancing?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  What’s the logic there that makes it offensive?

  The comment mixes women & females so it doesn’t appear fixated on a word offensively.

  When discussing complete sets, it symmetrically places words of a set together: “men, women” and “married, single”.

  When not discussing complete sets, only the words needed appear: they write “single young female” without “single young male”, because there was no reason to write the latter—it’s not part of the topic. The shift to females happens in a new sentence.

  Again: explain the necessity for males. Are you expecting everyone to write males for no reason whenever they write females (or the reverse)? Do we need to do the same with married & single? Are you claiming incomplete sets of words or asymmetry is offensive?

  That shit would be exhausting. Please explain the issue: otherwise, it looks like you’re simply picking over the noun female.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  “young females” then they are sending friend requests to “young women” or “young girls”.

  Nope, doesn’t follow logically. As I wrote at the link you willfully ignored, it could mean girls or young women, since they are female & they are young: I think you know that. Some word choices circumvent disagreements over words with vague distinctions: while no choice is wrong or offensive, young female is less opinionated & unlikely to clash with varied opinions on the distinction between girls & young women.

  Your diversion, however, leads nowhere & doesn’t answer the question raised before.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  asking what’s wrong with young girls

  Already answered: they wrote young females.

  strange men

  They wrote mutuals.

  your asking why people are pointing that out as a problem

  Nope: question clearly stated above about picking over a word.

  You get points, though, for picking over the message instead of a word: notice females not mentioned.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ 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?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Not sure friend requests count as “looking” in that sense. Young girls is a bit of a reach: young females could mean girls or young women where the age of the girl is unspecified.

  Great job not answering the questions: a sign of real integrity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  So is “females” in regular English usage.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Females does mean women or girls, and they wrote young. It is logical to write men when boys are absent or not discussed. Again: where’s the necessity for males?

  The context doesn’t indicate the writer uses females abusively, so picking over that word looks indiscriminate like the critic is stigmatizing the word itself. Again: what good does that advance?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Not answering the question: great evasion. 💯

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Was the writer in OP ever referring to males (men & boys)? What’s the necessity?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  because people who use females will say men and females

  Do you ignore all the instances they don’t? OP’s writer wrote women & used females to refer to female people (girls or women).

  The post I linked to shows another use of noun female.

  Singles communities, personals, classifieds, marketplaces offer abundant instances.

  The word appears often in book titles & passages, especially feminist literature.

  Seems your claim requires ignoring much regular English usage: it’s false.

  presumably

  That’s presuming an awful lot contrary to regular usage.

  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. Again: what good does that advance?

  It’s thoughtless, self-destructive language policing.