if you say “man” and “female” instead of “male” and “female”.

That's extra cringe if they do: that person needs to sort out their words. Is it not derogatory if they say “male” and “female”?

Notice how calling someone “a black” is kinda icky?

It's hard cringe & awkward: certain to provoke odd looks.

Referring to someone as an instance of their gender could be icky & cringe. That it's also derogatory doesn't follow: the easiest counterexample is "a male".

It's a news article in their news section, not a scientific study, Nature's domain of prestige/authority. In the hierarchy of evidence, this ranks at the bottom as background information.

The previous comment stands: it's an isolated claim lacking independent, impartial corroboration.

it’s still derogatory

It logically isn't. While you think that, and anyone spending their future with you should mind it, it doesn't make it true.

If there are factors that are keeping him celibate, they are entirely his own.

Though not entirely, that's no reason to become an incel, either. No girl got to hop on anyone's D ever.

highlighting images of text (about empathy), breaking accessibility

❌ (ironic) cringe

quoting text for accessibility, searchability, generally superior functionality

✔️ based

Is the pope even supposed to mind death?

He holy ghosted?

A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol.

News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?

a Nature article

Paywalled & also in the news section?

It's possible despite lax biosafety, they didn't leak the virus & didn't have it. Based on what little I can read of the article: the word of a person at the center of the matter may be true; however, that's considerable weight for their word to carry that leaves doubt over impartiality & independence. Findings of an independent monitor/investigation would be more convincing.

I don't know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?

I'm linking to supporting references, and you're not, so 🤷.

We ought to be vigilant about leaping to conclusions or letting biases creep in, and I can't control others doing that.

Contrary to these things happening to an insane degree, it's not clear the laboratories in question took adequate precautions.

Concerns about biosafety standards first caught my notice with this report stating that the laboratory may have been working with coronavirus at inappropriate biosafety levels as low as 2 (eg, unblocked respiratory paths of infection). Questioning the source (even though it seems coherent), I noticed other corroborating reports with references. If the reports are true, then these laboratories in the Wuhan Institute worked with infectious coronaviruses at inappropriate biosafety levels lower than their US counterparts.

Let’s be clear - if they were studying the virus in a lab and it “got out” from the lab or from the wild what difference does it make?

Firmer policies & enforcement of safety protocols? Informed selection of safety protocols?

Federal government reported the possibility without Trump in office:

• FBI reported it was likely
• Department of Energy joined them in saying it was possible.

Sources

• WSJ
• NPR

It's not a wild conspiracy theory. Virological gain of function research & lax safety protocols could lead to unsurprising results that aren't necessarily malicious.

This is the web: we can attribute source with link, and the original source in markdown could be quoted without breaking accessibility. The web is built for it.

👊 TARIFF 🔥

The GREATEST, most TREMENDOUS Python package that makes importing great again!

About

TARIFF is a fantastic tool that lets you impose import tariffs on Python packages. We're going to bring manufacturing BACK to your codebase by making foreign imports more EXPENSIVE!

Installation

 bash

    
pip install tariff

  

Usage

 python

    
import tariff

# Set your tariff rates (package_name: percentage)
tariff.set({
    "numpy": 50,     # 50% tariff on numpy
    "pandas": 200,   # 200% tariff on pandas
    "requests": 150  # 150% tariff on requests
})

# Now when you import these packages, they'll be TARIFFED!
import numpy   # This will be 50% slower
import pandas  # This will be 200% slower


  

Text: it's accessible!

The word “means” is also used for logical entailment

Yes in the contexts you gave.

No in this context: they're referring to the ruling on the legal definition.

You think I’m defending the stupid ruling.

Where does it say that?

It's a technical discussion of a legal definition. Defense/preference/endorsement is not implied.

if we’re going about precisely characterizing things

Pinning down legal definitions is what the legal system does. No one is claiming to personally defend it.

When does it not?

A definition identifies the meaning of the word being defined (the definiendum) with the meaning of the words doing the defining (the definiens). It declares their meanings identical, which implies equivalent, which implies symmetric.

The ruling makes law follow a precising definition, which imposes limitations on the conventional meaning to reduce vagueness.

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.

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?

randomly criticize someone else over a meme

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

The observation that perceived disapproval 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.

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? Maybe authoritarian?

With all the fascism denounced around here, they're a rarity, and it's perplexing to know what say to the far more common left-wing authoritarians who argue against democratic values because they're not left enough.

No problem: sometimes we all need a reality check when we go tilting at windmills as is custom around here.