“Someone asking for donations” maintains their dignity and communicates the point clearly…
It really doesn't though, in my opinion. If you talk about "someone asking for donations", I'd think of a volunteer collecting money for the local animal shelter. So if you actually wanted to communicate clearly, you'd have to go for something like "a person, typically a homeless one, who lives by asking for money or food". That's literally just the Oxford definition for "beggar" though. If you put that in the title of this question, it probably wouldn't even fit.
Like, I’m 6’4", if someone that’s 6’6" walked up and said “Hey shorty, what’s up”. I won’t give a single fuck.
If I was a 5’2" man, I might be offended, and if I said a 5’2 man had to be ok with it because I was, I’d be a jackass.
Firstly, I don't think that "shorty" is a good comparison, as that's an unambiguous (if mild) insult.
Secondly, it's not like anyone here is talking to any particular person calling them a beggar. If someone who was talking to me just called me "the German" instead of my name, yes, that might be a bit reductive and potentially rude. But if someone goes on Lemmy to ask "Why do Germans drive so fast on the Autobahn?", that's an entirely different thing. In that context it's simply a word that clearly conveys a meaning without having to use an entire sentence to explain it.
So something like "begging person" or "beggarly person"? I guess I can see where you're coming from. I've never heard people talking like that though, so it might not be as universal to western society as you think.
Personally, if you called me a German, a furry or a vegetarian, I wouldn't mind, even though none of these attributes encompass my entire existence. I guess the difference is that being a beggar carries a negative connotation, but I'm not sure that saying the same thing using slightly different phrasing really makes any appreciable difference.
Always good to let this kind of drama develop for a couple weeks before passing any judgement. Not to say I fully believe the publisher's narrative either. But maybe it's not the time for grandiose proclamations of a boycott yet.
I guess I was thinking about civilizations that practiced human sacrifice (e.g. in Mesoamerica) and generally civilizations where outsiders were not welcome (e.g. Edo-era Japan).
Assuming I could go back at some point, ancient Rome in its heyday would be a sight to see. I'd love to go sightseeing to almost any ancient civilization really. At least the ones where I wouldn't immediately get killed.
They absolutely had music, which we know both by paintings showing people playing instruments and also the instruments themselves which survived as grave goods etc. We roughly know what these instruments sounded like but what we don't have is any surviving melodies, as they didn't use written musical notation. We really have very few melodies from before the middle ages, a short but IMO very nice melody with text from Ancient Greece, which was found on a tombstone and some religious hymns from bronze age mesopotamia which was found with notations on cuneiform tablets.
I think it should be marked under the same conditions in which you would credit another artist on whose drawings your work is based on. Is it a close reproduction of an AI-generated piece? You should mark it as AI-assisted. Did you use AI-generated content as general inspiration to create your own unique artwork? No need to mark it in that case.
Freedom of speech is often confused with a right to say what you want on any platform, but it's not the same. As long as you can host your own website, say whatever you want on it and have the website be accessible to other people, there is freedom of speech on the internet. That's not the case in all countries, but in many it is. But getting banned on Twitter for writing "cisgender" or getting your post removed on Lemmy doesn't really touch your free speech whatsoever.
It really doesn't though, in my opinion. If you talk about "someone asking for donations", I'd think of a volunteer collecting money for the local animal shelter. So if you actually wanted to communicate clearly, you'd have to go for something like "a person, typically a homeless one, who lives by asking for money or food". That's literally just the Oxford definition for "beggar" though. If you put that in the title of this question, it probably wouldn't even fit.
Firstly, I don't think that "shorty" is a good comparison, as that's an unambiguous (if mild) insult.
Secondly, it's not like anyone here is talking to any particular person calling them a beggar. If someone who was talking to me just called me "the German" instead of my name, yes, that might be a bit reductive and potentially rude. But if someone goes on Lemmy to ask "Why do Germans drive so fast on the Autobahn?", that's an entirely different thing. In that context it's simply a word that clearly conveys a meaning without having to use an entire sentence to explain it.