• 0 Posts
  • 202 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
Cake day: December 13th, 2024
  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comtoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•Does people doing things that upset others also upset you?English
    24·
    2 days ago

    Bans are rarely justified. Strong emotions aren’t a good reason to ban much. If there are minimally invasive alternatives, and we can let others be, that’s typically better.

    Emotions aren’t a good reason for anything, really. I distrust feelings & prefer to understand & make sense of them before I allow myself to indulge them in myself or others.

    Judgement of right & wrong can operate on reason, and it’s better that it does. If someone is (justifiably) upset over a wrong, then a wrong exists, and knowing that suffices & is better than feeling it.

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comtoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•Does people doing things that upset others also upset you?English
    71·
    2 days ago

    No, not in general: too much unjustified outrage & self-absorbed idiocy in the world over unreasonable shit. Karens, bigots, culture warriors, pearl clutchers, holy wars. Too many people need to cool it & chill the fuck out.

    There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ.

    They need to be justifiably upset. Only then is it understandable. However, getting upset over it is not generally a good move: it may lead to poor decisions. Better to stay collected, acknowledge the problem, apply fair judgement to correct the matter.

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•How does usage of the N-word work?English
    5·
    3 days ago

    The rule is it’s a taboo word particularly in the US and in English-speaking communities aware of its US history. In the US, there’s an ingroup & outgroup dynamic with the black community where in less formal registers the ingroup may use it

    • for ingroup disparagement
    • neutrally
    • for ingroup solidarity or camaraderie.

    However, the ingroup speaks in black vernacular English, so the word sounds different.

    You’re recognized as a member of the ingroup community if they generally perceive you as such: culture, speech, appearance, other social markers.

    Usage by the outgroup is typically treated as insensitive & insulting outside special cases such as quotation & academic discussion. The euphemism n-word is typically employed to minimize offense.

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comtoA Boring Dystopia@lemmy.world•In 6 hours it will be illegal to say "I support Palestine Action" in the UK, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison.English
    3·
    3 days ago

    They are not being charged because they protested, they’re being charged for breaking in and damaging a lot of military equipment. I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists, but you can sort of see the government’s point, if you squint.

    Out of curiosity, I looked up the US Federal definition of terrorism

    definition
    1. the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that-
      1. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      2. appear to be intended-
        1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
        2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
        3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      3. occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

    Due to the element danger to human life, their definition wouldn’t fit.

    However, the UK legal definition

    definition
    1. In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
      1. the action falls within subsection (2),
      2. the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
      3. the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial][2] or ideological cause.
    2. Action falls within this subsection if it—
      1. involves serious violence against a person,
      2. involves serious damage to property,
      3. endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
      4. creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
      5. is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
    3. The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(2) is satisfied.
    4. In this section—
      1. “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
      2. a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
      3. a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
      4. “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
    5. In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

    is wild: no danger to human life required, merely serious damage to property suffices!

    1. Words in s. 1(1)(2) inserted (13.4.2006) by Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11), s. 34; S.I. 2006/1013, art. 2 ↩︎

    2. Words in s. 1(1)(3) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a) ↩︎

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comtoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•I am looking to broaden my youtube channels that I follow. What female channel are you following?English
    33·
    4 days ago

    Language policing of this sort is a red flag indicative of an ignorant, contentious trendhopper picking a fight over conventional English usage.

    Those nouns are conventional usage:

    we can check the dictionary

    female

    noun

      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

    male

    noun

      1. a male person : a man or a boy
      2. an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female
    2. a plant having stamens but no pistils

    or plainly observe unsolicited speech productions

    • here on lemmy or in the news such as where a mother refers to her daughters as females

      “What if I would have been armed,” she said. “You’re breaking in. What am I supposed to think? My initial thought was we were being robbed—that my daughters, being females, were being kidnapped. You have guns pointed in our faces. Can you just reprogram yourself and see us as humans, as women? A little bit of mercy. […]"

    • in singles communities, personals, classifieds, marketplaces (abundant instances)
    • in book titles & passages containing the word females or males, especially feminist or gender studies literature.

    What good cause is advanced by treating nouns female & male as toxic, dirty words?

    While OP doesn’t appear to be a native English user, this kind of language policing is misguided & exhausting, and we need to police that.