lmmarsano

@lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨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.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨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?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  So is “females” in regular English usage.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Not answering the question: great evasion. 💯

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

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

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  A non-scientific, informal context was given. Show us the offense there.

  This is straight-up misguided language policing. Again, what good is served by treating female like a toxic, dirty word?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  dictionary entry:

  female

  noun

  1. 1. a female person : a woman or a girl
     2. an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs
  2. a pistillate plant

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon studies human behavior⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Is treating females like a dirty, toxic word advancing a good cause?

  At least they don’t judge.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Police ethical standards are practically nonexistent in the US. Deception of juveniles & the intellectually disabled is permitted in most states to obtain court-admissible confessions, and police are trained to obtain confessions that way.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  They’re junk pseudoscience as stated in introductory textbooks on psychology & by the National Academy of Sciences & American Psychological Association. Law enforcement keeps them not for their scientific validity, but as an interrogation tactic for people who don’t know better.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What techniques do bad faith users use online to overwhelm other users in online discussion and arguments?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Fallacy accusations.

  No one needs to waste their time with someone else’s invalid reasoning.

  Some of them being also kind of subjective.

  Logicians & philosophers would disagree. Fallacies clarify identifying common reasoning errors & save effort overexplaining clearly documented problems.

  Was this a valid example or was it a strawman?

  Strawman means claiming to refute an argument by instead refuting a misrepresentation of it. Unclear how a question about examples would arise there unless the definition wasn’t understood.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What techniques do bad faith users use online to overwhelm other users in online discussion and arguments?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Appeal to fallacies

  I’ve seen people here misuse this claim. An argument from fallacy is a claim that the conclusion of a fallacious argument is false because of the fallacy.

  Claiming an argument is invalid (therefore not worth serious consideration until corrected) due to fallacy is not an instance.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We'll have plenty of camps to have them sent to by then.⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Even if it successfully shielded them from 100% of civil rights cases (which it objectively has not)

  Objectively, the planets sometimes align, too: the odds are highly against it.

  it provides no protection from criminal charges

  Also exceedingly rare: we’ve only seen any decent prosecution recently. It’s likely to fail.

  While that fight should continue, society has more mundane tools to ostracize & make people’s lives hell.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We'll have plenty of camps to have them sent to by then.⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated

  Anyone who’s hasn’t lived under a rock the past decade knows clearly established means practical impunity.

  Reported in Politico

  Some courts have required an extraordinarily precise match between the misconduct alleged in one case and in a prior one in order to find a violation of someone’s constitutional rights.

  […]

  When Baxter sued, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out his case. It held that while it was well established that a police dog couldn’t be unleashed on a suspect who was lying down, there was no case addressing someone sitting down with their hands up, as Baxter said he was doing.

  From Reason

  “I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” writes Thomas. “Because our §1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition.”

  The judge spoke to a point that qualified immunity critics have been making for some time: The framework was concocted by the Supreme Court in spite of court precedent. It’s a perfect example of legislating from the bench—something conservatives typically oppose.

  The Civil Rights Act of 1871, otherwise known as Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, explicitly grants you the ability to sue public officials who trample on your constitutional rights. The high court tinkered with that idea in Pierson v. Ray (1967), carving out an exemption for officials who violated your rights in “good faith.” Thus, qualified immunity was born.

  That doctrine ballooned to something much larger in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), when the Supreme Court scrubbed the “good faith” exception in favor of the “clearly established” standard, a rule that has become almost impossible to satisfy. Now, public officials cannot be held liable for bad behavior if a near-identical situation has not been outlined and condemned in previous case law.

  Though the original idea was to protect public servants from vacuous lawsuits, the practical effects have been alarming. As I wrote last week:

  In Howse v. Hodous (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit gave qualified immunity to two officers who allegedly assaulted and arrested a man on bogus charges for the crime of standing outside of his own house. There was also the sheriff’s deputy in Coffee County, Georgia, who shot a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a non-threatening dog; the cop in Los Angeles who shot a 15-year-old boy on his way to school because the child’s friend had a plastic gun; and two cops in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant.

  In other words, cops need the judiciary to tell them explicitly that stealing is wrong. The aforementioned police officers were thus shielded from legal accountability, leaving the plaintiffs with no recourse to seek damages for medical bills or stolen assets.

  Court standards are so strict, nearly any meaningless, incidental difference suffices to grant officials cover of qualified immunity: literally the difference between lying down & sitting is all it takes to violate rights with impunity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Want happier employees? Start with a 32-hour workweek – and 4 weeks vacation.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That goal is too modest. We shouldn’t settle until Keynes prediction of a 15-hour workweek is fulfilled.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Saint > Pope⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Which is why I think it was all on purpose.

  Occam/Hanlon’s razor: it’s stupidity with opportunistic grift.

  Project 2025 had pro- & anti-tariff proposals (they were split on the issue of fair vs free trade & argued both). This administration is running wild with the pro-tariff proposal, which ties tariff imbalances to trade deficits (seen this theme before?).

  While the fair trade camp argued higher tariffs would somehow create jobs, the free trade camp called for realism & skepticism

  trade policy has limited capabilities and is vulnerable to mission creep and regulatory capture

  will fail for the same reason that a hammer cannot turn a screw: It is the wrong tool for the job. Conservatives should be similarly skeptical of recent attempts on the Right to use progressive trade policy to punish political opponents, remake manufacturing, or accomplish other objectives for which it is not suited. The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.

  countered that no trade policy (fair or free) creates jobs

  Neither free trade nor protectionism will create jobs. Trade affects the types of jobs people have, but it has no long-run effect on the number of jobs. Labor force size is tied to population size more than anything else.

  and argues more inline with textbook economics about trade, comparative advantage, specialization.

  Interestingly, the free trade camp gave a brief history lesson about the interconnectedness of the economy from its agrarian beginnings

  In 1776, nearly 90 percent of Americans were farmers. For 10 people to eat, nine had to farm. That meant fewer people could be factory workers, doctors, or teachers, or even live in cities, because they were needed on the farm. Accordingly, life expectancy was around 40 years, and literacy was 13 percent.

  through the loss of jobs from agriculture to industry increasing the output of both

  Many displaced farm laborers got jobs making the very farm equipment that made intensive agricultural growth possible, from railroad networks to cotton gins. Each fed the other. Agriculture and industry are not separate; they are as interconnected as everything else in the economy. None of this could have happened had the government enacted policies to preserve full agricultural employment.

  to argue that jobs in a particular sector are the wrong measure of value

  economic policy should treat value as value, whether it is created on a farm, in a factory, or in an office. A dollar of value created in manufacturing is neither more nor less valuable than a dollar of value created in agriculture or services.

  growth increased as service sector surpassed manufacturing

  Farmers’ share of the population continued to decline through this entire period, yet employment remained high, and the economy continued to grow. Factories were not the only beneficiaries of agriculture’s productivity boom and the labor it freed; services also grew. In fact, service-sector employment surpassed manufacturing employment around 1890—far earlier than most people realize.

  economic decline based on manufacturing is a myth that disregards the big picture

  In trade, as in most other areas, few people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline.

  trade leads to specialization that affects the types of jobs, not long-term employment level

  The data do not show American economic carnage. They show more than two centuries of intensive growth, made possible by a growing internal market throughout the 19th century and a growing international market in the post–World War II era. The transition from farm to factory did not shrink the labor force or farm output. Later, the transition from factories to services did not shrink the labor force, factory output, or farm output. Both transitions affected the types of jobs, not the number of jobs.

  declining tariffs in the post-war era made this continued prosperity possible

  population growth, the U.S.-led rules-based international trading system, and the steady 75-year decline in tariffs after World War II have made possible decades of continued prosperity

  That position was too nuanced for this administration.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It really is just reddit <3⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  screenshot of text
  no link or alt text

  Dude, charge your battery.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Getting mixed signals from Reddit. Furthermore I shall henceforth be on Lemmy full time.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  you can get banned here

  It takes special effort here, though.

  And like it was always going to be like that anyways.

  It’s not inevitable: some places are very laissez-faire.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Philosophy moment⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Link to source, because screenshots of screenshots are inaccessible trash.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A bit of salt makes it taste more savory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Horseshoe theory

  the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center

  are both fascists

  Are closer doesn’t mean are the same: horseshoe theory doesn’t support your claim.

  They’re both authoritarians that repress human rights. They’re as bad as fascists. Identifying those elements that make them as bad—authoritarianism & repression of human rights—clarifies discussion.

  When we articulate problems accurately, we can criticize them in all guises.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A bit of salt makes it taste more savory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  What did OP directly say or do in their post to direct a response to them rather than the image? All we have is their image in no particular context, an interpretation of the image, & a hypothetical statement I wrote?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A bit of salt makes it taste more savory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  randomly criticize someone else over a meme

  Someone else or the meme? Are we getting worked up over generic you?

  The observation that perceived denunciation for “fighting fascists” around here may more often be someone deluding themselves, so the image rings false with self-delusion is a critique of the meme.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A bit of salt makes it taste more savory⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Semantics is literal meaning, though. Words mean things.

  I’m sure there are many words for left-wing authoritarians: fascist isn’t it. Instead of making fascism meaningless, can we pick a correct word?