lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

0

Comments

422

Joined

7 mo. ago

“It’s not my opinion”

spends the next ten paragraphs expressing that opinion

Believe what you want. Contrary to what some profoundly dim people believe, it is possible to write about an opinion of others & explain it to someone who isn't getting it.

Insisting that the problem isn’t wealth accumulation

That's one theory that isn't widely accepted. The voters who need to be won over don't seem to accept it.

instead “corrupt” wealth that just happens to be accumulated

Not at all stated. Maybe you need to read without the filter: some people think it is possible to gain wealth legitimately & to prevent government from enabling illegitimate power.

You're looking at illegitimate power gained through wealth but not any other means, which is shortsighted. We could make everyone poor & still let people gain illegitimate power: that wouldn't satisfy anyone.

that’s what they’ve been running on

They haven't. Neither oligarchs nor kings changes the overall message.

The part of their message that's working for AOC & Sanders isn't necessarily income inequality: they're also raising a populist message against elites like Musk & his fellow billionaires, their exploitation of & disruption of & threats to government programs that serve & protect the people. The message works more broadly than you claim.

This is such a boomer take.

Right: Democrats need to try winning, but they better not try to actually win/beat the opposition at tactics they've proven win. So weak.

Are you suggesting the documentation

For a line break, add either a backslash \ or two blank spaces at the end of the line.

with example

 markdown

    
This is a\
line break.

  

& interactive exercises is harder to understand than your post?

Reading documentation is not for “the average person”

Your post is basically longer, less clear documentation: wouldn't that take more effort for “the average person”?

implying this post isn’t

Nope: not reading documentation is also free. Only costs more time.

So how would you like to pay?

Do you accept Rai stones? What's the total? Payment plan available?

Learn history?

Searching markdown guide & reading is free…

I just had a thought: are the Signal people MAGA?

I just had a thought: are the shoelace people MAGA?

Rubber, glue

Again, not my opinion.

Look around: who voted Trump into office? What thoughts voted him in? I doubt they're anti-capitalist.

But [wealth] is a problem

Again, many don't share your anti-capitalist sentiments. They'd say the problem is cronyism such as political connections & undue influence of moneyed special interests in politics. These are not the same.

They aren't opposed to accumulation of wealth. They're opposed to wealth gained through illegitimate means (eg, connections to win government bids, pass laws in their favor, capture regulatory agencies, reduce competition): economic government corruption, ie, crony capitalism.

They boil down to the same answer: get money out of politics (eliminate the dependence of campaigns on fundraising, reform lobbying) & break up the 2-party system.

If we believe wealth inequality is the source of the issue

Many think it's a symptom: the problem is political access from wealth disadvantaging others from gaining wealth or crony capitalism.

“A presidential cabinet position shouldn't be for sale to the highest bidder” is more direct without requiring buy-in to an idea many don't accept. You focus on wealth rather than that no level of wealth should be able to buy that sort of thing.

one is addressing the actual issue

Questionable: the actual issue is illegitimate power as originally stated. Some people care more that it was gained at all: they shouldn't have that illegitimate power through wealth or any other means (personal connections, favors, etc). They want the cronyism removed from capitalism.

so nerfing your messaging and platform

It's not: it's framing the same goals in language other voters will accept. Neither oligarch nor kings implies capitalism as you stated.

Democrats will not win on the messaging being proposed

Until Democrats build in other states the kind of establishment they have in California & New York, Democrats in other states will need to adapt their message to their voters.

Frankly, adapting a message isn't enough. They need to beat Republicans at social media, have their own answer to right-wing influencers & podcasters like Joe Rogan, probably pump out their own viral bullshit, answer Republican troll farms with Democrat troll farms.

Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?

Source:

Cognitive meaning is when words are used to convey information and emotive meaning is when words are used to convey your own beliefs (your emotions).

And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck??

It's not about me. It's about how others think, and they don't necessarily think wealth is a problem. They may think more about power & corruption.

I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well

I think you overestimate Americans & don't know how many think unlike you.

they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence

That's cool for your family.

It's a mixed bag: plenty of people in those states also vote the way they do because they think they someday could be rich. There's an anti-intellectual strain that dislikes people who say words like oligarch.

Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique & takes some steps & assumptions to arrive to the part that bothers people. Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.

Many had little problem with the wealthy itself until they saw the Musks, Bezos, & Zuckerbergs line up with the president for favors, ie, corruption.

I think we're both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn't imply capitalism, either.

The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn't parallel. Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren't clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.

Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.

Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn't really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow "earned it more" than others. There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk. Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn't irrational, either.

While I'm fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.

b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is

They're not? Have you looked around?

One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.

I'm sure the average, middle-of-the-road voter with mundane concerns thinks that. So relatable.

"King" isn't even related to capitalism.

People really like first not admitting they didn't read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.

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

Look at this guy go past the headlines & read the article: that's heresy around here.

The capacity of humanity to act against themselves is sometimes a wonder.

former director of the American Institute of Physics

arXiv, which physicists setup nearly as far back as the web, would have a word with this guy. The web was invented at CERN practically so physicists could share research documents.

A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term “female” is derogatory.

many anglophones disagree with you

And a nonsignificant amount don't. That doesn't establish a generally accepted convention of the language community.

Language is alive - it evolves, it changes.

True: still not a conventional definition per earlier remarks.

English words are based on common usage.

Exactly: convention.

Women who feel that way are part of the “language community.”

Incomplete evidence or composition fallacy.

whose use of English is less valid than yours.

Nope, not implied & it's not about my use, either. It's about observed, established convention: see earlier remarks (notice a pattern yet?). The lack of consistency across usages indicates that derogatory meaning is not a convention.

all we’re doing is pointing out that it’s used in this way

And plenty of innocuous instances exist as discussed before. That doesn't make a word itself derogatory:

If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.

I don't deny derogatory instances. Do you deny nonderogatory instances?

Just because you don’t feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn’t mean those that experience it that way are wrong.

It's simple overgeneralization: people can draw wrong conclusions about their observations, especially if they disregard conflicting observations (incomplete evidence fallacy). Observing derogatory uses while disregarding nonderogatory uses doesn't justify any conclusion about a word's conventional definition.

It varies by message, so it's not the word itself.

get to the point you’re really saying, which is that women’s experiences and opinions are somehow worth less than yours.

Straw man fallacy. Not implied.

Maybe you follow the logic I wrote, but the conclusion still feels wrong, so you're unwilling to accept it. Let's unpack that feeling.

The conventional definition that the noun "female" isn't derogatory feels wrong, because sexists use that word in an ugly way, and opposing that would feel relieving. What can we do with these feelings? Here's one idea: even though it's not generally accepted, let's make the noun "female" an official dirty word. Let's accept the premise of their sexism that "females" are lesser and take it further than they did: spread it to the broader community, normalize it into the official language so everyone accepts the noun for an entire gender is a dirty word. The sexists might even be grateful.

Would that feel better? If so, then extraterrestrial anthropologists studying you might reasonably conclude you're a misogynist. Otherwise, you might want to tell your feelings "Fuck you, feelings! Stop making me do stupid shit!". Alternatively, understand your feelings & guide them better.

But we can’t pretend we’ve lived in a world of equal opportunity that treats men and women, males and females, equally

in trying to make that point.

While I agree with the first part, that is not implied or necessary to refute the argument as presented.

They argued the same reasoning applies to "male" (literally). It clearly doesn't.

Therefore, whatever the reasoning could be, their argument isn't it. Basic logic.

If a sound argument exists, we should present that. Otherwise, we're pretending to reason.

Well done: that's the way you defend a thesis. Sources & supported reason. Not whatever nonsense you were doing.

I upvoted your comment, too.

What makes you the ultimate authority

Where do you get the power to decide

What makes your opinion about it more valid

I don't need to be or decide it and it's not my opinion: the language community is the ultimate authority of their language. Their collective choices establish observable conventions. Linguistics is dedicated to that approach.

What makes your opinion about it more valid than those of others?

Have you considered that the same word can make two different people feel two different ways?

Subjectivist fallacy: your opinion/feelings don't make claims true. Up doesn't mean down because someone feels that way.

Language has conventional, established meanings.

Another comment fully argues, explains, & criticizes your argument, which I won't bother to rehash here.

I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language. I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.

The claim is the word itself is derogatory. It's an argument roughly of the form:

1. Someone mentioned female humans.
2. They used the noun "female".
3. The noun "female" is derogatory.
4. Therefore, their statement (regardless of message) is derogatory.

These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy. While it can be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.

Language isn’t always about logic.

Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn't follow, either. Language does follow a standard (of sorts): convention. By that standard, the claim is false.

Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community. This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don't decide for the entire language community).

If (as reported) native speakers require frequent "correction" on a word's meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning isn't generally accepted. A longstanding definition (like "female" as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.

If the "corrections" aren't, then what are they? At best, a proposed language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun "female" is derogatory and change the way allies speak.

Is it a good proposal?

Would defining the noun "female" as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies? Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn't adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary. They wouldn't need to adjust a single word.

Is it just? Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization. Blanket condemnation based on a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers. Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.

The result? A reductive purity test that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers. That is neither right nor beneficial.

Would making the noun "female" a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo? That seems misguided.

Why that word? The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric. It's roughly an argument of the form

1. Sexist extremists use the noun "female".
2. Sexist extremists derogate female humans.
3. Therefore, the noun "female" is inherently derogatory: anyone who uses it derogates female humans.

First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even use the noun "female" disproportionately? I've only seen it among socially awkward individuals: not the same crowd.

More crucially, this argument is invalid: it's a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).

Thus, the proposal doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it's not good in any sense.

often done when discussing science or medical topics

or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction. Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there's even a movie about it. Not derogatory. Context matters.

It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.

While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.

Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females

Recalling an earlier question: do they?

Though interesting if so, that alone doesn't make the word in general derogatory. Nonderogatory instances are common (as you've identified). If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.

The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn't make it derogatory. That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.

Your argument really shows the people who "consider it derogatory" misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.

Final thought: humans don't need constant reassurance that they're humans to know they aren't being demeaned (unless they're painfully insecure).

tl;dr The claim that noun "female" is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language's community, corroborated by the frequent need to "correct" native speakers. Moreover, the claim doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.