Because the decision of which politics is disallowed is a political discussion, and those people will bring their politics of bigotry to the table and argue that “no politics day” means minorities should be silenced.
Uh oh, you got politics in your no politics.
I remember reading about digital warfare and how the character of different weaponry can be stabilising or destabilising.
So the example given was nuclear weapons. The consequences of using them are so disastrous that there is no good use case, and so they tend to be stabilising. They discourage use.
Digital warfare is destabilising, because it’s very easy to do and very hard to catch, so you’re better off using it, even without any declared war.
Information warfare is probably very similar, it encourages use, but that’s because it’s very low-stakes. It wouldn’t be very exciting. I imagine it’d make a better comedy than a drama.
Vizzini was very clear that the most famous is “never get involved in a land war in Asia”.
You can with a sub-wavelength antenna like a nintendo joycon has, it’s less than 10mm in X and Y axes. It will just have terrible reception, like a nintendo joycon has.
Also it could be a higher frequency which would allow a smaller antenna.
Her eyes and mouth are slightly wider than a relaxed expression, so there’s visible tension. In video it could be cute, like she might just be happy, but if you freeze just that one moment then her expression is ambiguous. Either she’s talking and smiling enthusiastically, or she’s about to eat you enthusiastically, or more realistically she’s afraid and trying to hide it. Add the creepy text and you’re primed to interpret the expression negatively.
Right, but nobody except grammar nazis and the sith deal in absolutes like that.
Obviously the signifiers have a level of stability otherwise nobody would understand any of it.
This is yet another way in which language and gender are analogous.
Words are objects in a sense, although they are abstract, but there is no singular objective language in the same way that there is no objective gender. Both are intersubjective, they are interactions negotiated between subjects. There is no fixed object that you can point to and call “language” independent of a subjective experience of that language.
And your argument could be applied to expressions of gender. A feminine dress is an object, and a beard is an object. These are gender signifiers, but that doesn’t make gender itself objective in any way. The analogy to language is very close. They are both sets of signifiers.
It does change all the time, and dictionaries don’t ensure any kind of standard. The linguists who write dictionaries will tell you that their only function is to describe the most popular parts of the language, not to prescribe any particular rules. Telling people how they should speak doesn’t actually work.
I could say the phrase “abso-fucking-lutely” and you understand it, even though it’s not in the dictionary. That’s still language, it’s still English.
And I don’t know what you mean by a “‘hard’ contradiction” or why that matters. My point is that both language and gender are forms of communication that rely on socially constructed signifiers and they are both fluid to a similar degree, so the analogy is good. If you want to argue with me, that’s the point you should be dealing with.
Language isn’t objective though. It wasn’t handed down from some deity.
Language is a constantly evolving negotiation of new and remixed communications, performed through billions of interactions every single day. It’s collaborative and unpredictable and sometimes someone comes up with something cool and the next day everybody is copying them.
In short, language is socially constructed.
I think it’s a great analogy for gender in that respect.
It’s Buddy the Christ.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg
Oh but I bet that other person is 14 then. That’s obviously the substance of my critique, you win.
Translation: “I have no way of arguing with this obvious and simply stated fact, so I’ll pretend they’re 14 and think it’s deep and then attack them for that. I’m 28 and this is a worthwhile use of my time.”
Holy shit, what an opener, and then the second paragraph is the perfect punchline. I think the wiki editors knew exactly what they were doing.
Men can lactate, specifically when they are severely malnourished, but I have heard it’s possible to induce it in various ways. This would aid the survival of a tribe when food was scarce by keeping the babies alive for longer, but some mammals can do it under normal circumstances as well.
This is all potentially true.
I would be very happy to provide an alternative face.
women are not your enemy and are not even theoretically automatable
On lemmy I’ve been accused so many times of reverse-racism and reverse-sexism, where advocating for minorities brings out the trolls who want to muddy the waters and claim that noticing bigotry is the real bigotry actually, and they had big vote pile-ons to go with those comments.
This is largely from big instances with open sign-up. I assume lemmy attracts the right wing trolls who tend to get banned from other places, which is one downside of being a viable alternative that isn’t yet mainstream. Also I’m sure they target this place because it is generally left-leaning.