casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer

So Team Fortress 3

Cis and trans are both the same type of descriptor. If trans can be used as a slur, so can cis.

Not saying either are slurs by default. But they most certainly can be turned into ones.

And trans is also a descriptive term, right?

I only ever call myself things like cisgender for the sake of argument, as it is the identity I was born into and lived with for many years before realizing I was agender.

I personally consider cisgender and cishet to be slurs solely because I've so largely seen it used in a derogatory context, the same way "white male" is used by certain bad actors to signal outrage

In all reality gender, sexual preference, race, ethnicity are all our of place in most civil discussion-- the majority of the time it is brought up is in discussion of identity politics. And if what we want as a society is equality, then identity should take a back seat to humanism.

Unfortunately, as I'm sure my comment score will no doubt soon reflect, a lot of people take issue with this notion of equality and, as I'm sure replies to my comments may end up reflecting, are ready to disagree and offer their own definitions of equality. It is therefore the duty of the reader to decide what equality means to them, unfortunately.

Constituents don't have many cards they're allowed to hold. So the ones we can, we will clutch with a death grip.

Some of us refuse to let anyone know who we vote for until the pen meets the paper. Because the President is supposed to work for the people, so we'll make them work for it as long as we can.

Red Hat

No, you're angry at IBM. When news of the IBM acquisition broke, sector veteran colleagues I'm close with moaned and groaned that IBM was sure to do something to piss everyone off again, which was apparently their habit a couple decades back. Sure enough, they could not have been more accurate in their assessment.

Turns out IBM is three hot messes in a trenchcoat and always has been. Hence why they have already lost the Quantum wars and likely the GenAI wars as well. One AI vet I know says they're posed to even lose the AI war altogether, which is pathetic given the groundwork provided by Watson alone.

So, technically speaking, an ace individual cannot find someone sexy? They can have sex with someone for the sake of having sex, be it for bond or pleasure or whatnot, but from what you're saying they do not show any sexual attraction towards any demographic of people?

yeah no I'm not taking that bait, bud.

But "it" is for inanimate objects

Not quite. "It" is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to "the". It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, "it" is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas "they" would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it's more appropriate to use "it" but "they" could also work.

I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.

Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you're ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.

I say this because I didn't read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3

Thank you for the civil discussion.

Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.

I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I'd hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.

And for anyone who thinks I'm overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.

If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.