English doesn't have gendered nouns or declensions or a million characters, don't complain about weird spellings. And constructed languages are for dorks.
we do have gendered nouns
actor/actress
dominator/dominatrix
etc
one of my favorite pieces of trivia picked up at work in the past couple of weeks is the fact that a female administrator of an estate is called an administratrix
i told the owner this and he told me to fuck right off
a testatrix is a woman who has executed a will (she is, presumably, also dead)
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
So on Saturday, after all the unpleasantness at urgent care, I took #2 out for ice cream. Father-son 1-on-1 time, which I'm trying to do more regularly with all the kids since I already see much less of them than porp does.
Anyways
Afterward we finish our ice cream I ask if there's anything else he would like to do together. He wants to go to a play space with a ball pit. OK. So I take him over to a Burger King. He plays there for a bit while I watch and cheer him on, then we need to walk to the Walgreens and pick up medicine for #1.
On the walk over, #2 sees a bunch of leaves in the parking lot that have collected along the curb. He bends down to pick up bunch up. "Daddy I'm gonna get you with these leaves" he says, mischievously. And I almost instinctively started saying something like "Not now we need to get going to the store" but then I stopped and realized, yknow, we don't need to be getting anywhere immediately.
So I picked up some leaves myself and we spent a couple minutes having a leaf fight in a burger king parking lot.
It's weird, though, how you adult for so long and it eventually starts to take over who you are
congratulations, your son is now a lazy, impulsive wastrel who will major in English at the cost of $50,000 per year in tuition
But at least he won't have daddy issues! I get tired of people singing "And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon..."
half elves are lame, you just gotta go full elf or not
the only acceptable halves are half-orcs and maybe halflings
is there a term for a half-halfling?
uh I think we have some but they're kinda racist-sounding these days
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
English doesn't have gendered nouns or declensions or a million characters, don't complain about weird spellings. And constructed languages are for dorks.
we do have gendered nouns
actor/actress
dominator/dominatrix
etc
one of my favorite pieces of trivia picked up at work in the past couple of weeks is the fact that a female administrator of an estate is called an administratrix
i told the owner this and he told me to fuck right off
a testatrix is a woman who has executed a will (she is, presumably, also dead)
yesssss this is the good stuff
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited September 2017
norwegian / swedish chocolate is on point tho.
edit: the milk stuff. America makes Dark Chocolate that challenges all foreign contenders.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But for the record, German law doesn't just ban Nazi iconography, it also bans speech that advocates violence towards, or insults the dignity of, any racial group.
If there's an example of a non-racist or progressive group that's been trod under the boot of the state in the name of German anti-hate-speech or anti-Nazi laws, I'd love to hear about it.
idk any examples but I don't speak German so it's a challenge to find you one. That it hasn't happened is no reflection on the problem of whether it can happen. Power gets used, eventually.
Russell's teapot applies here.
Not sure I agree. I think it's different to argue that the inevitable result of giving power is that it will be used.
Russell's teapot doesn't apply because of slippery slope.
Got it.
Slippery slope arguments are not by default fallacies!
No informal fallacy is. Neither are Abdhy's dogged attempts to tu quoque me upthread.
That's what makes informal fallacies informal. They aren't necessarily wrong. They're just usually wrong and they require extra work to demonstrate why any specific case is the exception.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
But for the record, German law doesn't just ban Nazi iconography, it also bans speech that advocates violence towards, or insults the dignity of, any racial group.
If there's an example of a non-racist or progressive group that's been trod under the boot of the state in the name of German anti-hate-speech or anti-Nazi laws, I'd love to hear about it.
idk any examples but I don't speak German so it's a challenge to find you one. That it hasn't happened is no reflection on the problem of whether it can happen. Power gets used, eventually.
Russell's teapot applies here.
Not sure I agree. I think it's different to argue that the inevitable result of giving power is that it will be used.
But....I....
It has been used, to silence Nazis! And I don't look at Germany and bemoan the death of free speech because you can't be a fucking Nazi loudly and proudly
"Banning free speech will lead to bad things!"
"But it hasn't happened in Germany, which is what we want to kind of test"
"BUT IT COULD"
I'm....not really convinced that absence of evidence is somehow proof of evidence?
The disconnect here is that you are measuring only whether the effect you want is happening, and maybe not even recognizing that "chilling effect" is a thing?
Like, the harm is that the People live in a regime where some speech will inherently get you thrown in jail. That's the harm. Their society is one in which sometimes, if you say a bad thing, the government forces you to be silent or else.
Yes Nazis should be jailed and reformed, or otherwise removed from society if reform is somehow impossible.
Yes this is a thing we can do without pretty much forever.
Just because we're doing it for Nazis doesn't mean we should do it for anyone else. Nazis got their chance, then we realized they make few valid contributions to the human race.
legit question: how would you define "nazi" in law in a way that does not allow a nazi party to still exist by taking the NSDAP manifesto and find-and-replace banned terms with something else and using, I dunno, fucking pepe, instead of the flag of nazi germany, yet cannot cover things that are not nazis
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
i'm fine with calling out tone policing when what's going on is just that- it's a deeply obnoxious way to circumvent an actual argument. but as often i just see it used for any criticism of accompanying language. if i say 'actually, please don't call white/gay people monstrous pieces of shit. now, on to your argument'... i don't think i've done anything wrong? i can think you're being a jerk and also be wrong. but over time i think many easy vectors of attack (like all the logical fallacies, and in this case tone policing) start to just get used as rhetorical gambits. you know, running up the score for the audience like ending every post with a pithy, moving, agree-farming line.
I mainly see tone policing invoked these days as a magic incantation that wins the argument for the speaker, because the interlocutor committed the taboo of criticizing word choice
Which, yeah, is nonsense; for one thing, diction policing is not tone-of-voice policing; for another, like you said, it is not a bad-faith attempt to derail the conversation if you temporarily discuss the implications of a word choice
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
English doesn't have gendered nouns or declensions or a million characters, don't complain about weird spellings. And constructed languages are for dorks.
we do have gendered nouns
actor/actress
dominator/dominatrix
etc
one of my favorite pieces of trivia picked up at work in the past couple of weeks is the fact that a female administrator of an estate is called an administratrix
i told the owner this and he told me to fuck right off
Administratrix is a warhammer 40k job title
Imperial Administratrix Munitorum
For seven generations your family has counted bullets in a warehouse by hand and you are thankful for this relatively posh existence
"Half-elf" is just a weird concept to decide your world needs. Like ok so we've got these humans, and these elves. Now what about someone who is kind of an elf, but not really. They've got weird ears and like Enya but don't live forever. neat.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
I think the "i before e is bullshit" thing has been mostly overplayed, but I have to give this mug credit for not cheating by using words that only have "ei" because of modifiers (like "reissue") or that pronounce both vowels separately (like "atheist").
Although it loses points for including 6 words that fall under the "except after 'c' and when sounding like 'a' as in neighbor and weigh" clause that is the most common presentation of the "i before e" rule.
See, this is ridiculous though, because counting the exceptions to the "c" rule gives you stuff like "policies" and "fanciest" which are clearly not meant to be covered by this rule. They're covered by another rule, which is that when you make words that end in "y" a plural or a comparative you change the "y" to an "i". So now every word that ends in "cy" that can be pluralized or changed to a comparative is suddenly an exception to the exception! No, that's stupid.
There's a reason the panel in that clip had so much trouble coming up with words at first, because everybody's trying to think of words like "ancient", where the "cie" is just part of the word, rather than an accident of conversion. A lot of the words used as examples of violations of the rule are ridiculous! Sheik? Geisha? Even setting aside the fact that those are literally words in other languages that we just use to describe the thing that they are, how often are people using those words? Counterfeit? Sovereign? These are not everyday words. Better to stick with stuff like "weird" and "height".
+1
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
I think the important thing is that all the pro punching people recognize that assault is illegal
And we aren't saying it should be made legal to assault someone for being a Nazi
But it is, in many people's opinion, the morally correct thing, which may not always be the legal thing, and in some cases shouldn't be legal.
But, also, we would love to have other methods to silence Nazi speech
We just... don't
And many people actively resist any effort to fix that problem
I feel like this is a core issue here. It's ultimately wishing for a new tool for authoritarianism. Would you give Trump this tool? What do you think he'd do with it now if we'd given it to Obama?
Government can't be trusted with the ability to silence the People. It should properly have to work super fucking hard to even try. As for examples? Just look at the way the police react to being filmed by citizens as they do their jobs. That shit is completely legal but over and over we see innocent Americans being hauled off to jail, their property destroyed, and their livelihoods threatened on trumped-up nonsense charges because the police don't like oversight from the citizens.
I'll go further: European democracies are weaker for their hate speech laws. Strong free-speech rights didn't lead to European fascism in the 30s, and it wouldn't stop a resurgence now, but they do reduce the People's rights within those nations.
What does "weaker" mean here? That's a very loaded term.
Canada has hate speech laws and has not really had much trouble with it. I dispute the idea that hate speech laws are necessarily some kind of sacrifice of principle, nor are laws against threat or harassment or perjury or etc
I guess it depends on your principle, and frankly I often shy away from this because it feels like calling out other forum members personally even though I absolutely don't feel that way and hope no one takes it like that.
But if your principle is "the People have a fundamental right to speak, and the government can't prevent it unless and until it infringes on the rights of another", then imo hate speech laws do require sacrificing that principle. Canadian rights (and those of many (most?
all?) European Democracies) are already weaker because power doesn't flow People-->Constitution-->Government.
If your principle is something else, it's a different conversation.
Spool, if you agree we can prevent free speech when it infringes on the rights of others, then that pretty easily carves out legal protection against hate speech
We just have to write it into law that people have a right not to be attacked verbally or some such (I'm not a lawyer)
I guess what I'm really saying is, in my opinion, Nazi ideology and speech is an infringement on human rights and ought be discouraged however possible
Arch I don't agree that hate speech infringes on the rights of others. I don't think that the Right to be free from Verbal Attacks is or should be a thing, even though it sure would have felt nice back in the day to get a couple of members of this community arrested for painting me as e.g. racist, pro-rape, in favor of killing poors. They don't deserve to be in jail for that and frankly I don't deserve to deploy the State's enforcement power to protect me from it.
Also I'm glad they didn't have the power to call the FBI on me because that would have sucked. What you want would produce a significant Chilling Effect on speech!
Lots of ideologies are an infringement on human rights. We can't get on this train with just Nazis unless there's some thing that makes them extra special and doesn't exist with, oh, Chinese Communism let's say.
I don't think you can craft a thing for hate speech that doesn't come into direct conflict with our current concept of the Freedom from Government Restriction on Speech. One of them has got to give ground.
I think...and correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm more looking for is some sort of civil protecture from hate speech, and not necessarily a government ban on it. I don't want the police storming your house for saying racist shit, but I would love a system wherein someone is able to sue you for racist stuff (to be settled in a court of law by a jury of your peers etc etc etc). I'm sure there are potential abuses, as there are in all legal and justice frameworks, but I'm also pretty fucking sure that the way things are going right now is worse
OK so... leaving aside criminal penalties, how do you show damages from my speech? Like, say I tell you I think bugs are terrible and in a just world they would all be deported to Bugistan. How do you convince a jury that I've committed some civil penalty that requires I compensate you, and for how much?
What if I didn't even say it to you? You just saw someone RT "bzz... just, bzzz. omg. Look at this bugist scum."
I didn't know what a racist Richard Spencer was until someone on these forums linked to him. Who's to blame for my exposure to racism, and thus is liable for civil penalty?
This shit ain't workable dude. Solutions need to come from the culture, not from the Government.
You're using really weak hypotheticals here. We can dismiss frivolous suits pretty easily, and me trying to sue someone because they don't like bugs is easily dismissed, but someone bringing someone to task for sending them DMs on twitter full of slurs and hatespeech is a completely different thing.
But, now you've gone and done the problem again! If solutions don't come from the government, then you by default have to support things like call out culture and twittershaming.
Like, that's the fucking paradox I've been complaining about! Before we had actual Nazis doing Nazi things, I would say "wow, we should do something about these twitter racists" and people would get up in arms about how yelling at someone on the internet doesnt do anything, we need to be nicer to them
So like, I feel like I can't win, and all these conversations circle back to "people are going to say shitty things, and you can't stop them" and, frankly, I don't accept that, and I feel like this downplays the current situation to a point where you're writing off the actual harm these words are doing to people
So, just to get this out there: I couldn't give two shits about someone convincing Twitter to ban every account that has ever typed the word Nazi in any context. I don't have any issue with someone bringing your photo with nazi armband to the interview and asking you to explain yourself. I think cultural approbation is generally fine though mob justice is often the result and that's pretty fucked up so there are degrees here. We did this with gay rights and alongside robust engagement across the culture it's working out pretty well lately.
But I'm serious in asking you how to demonstrate and quantify harm, individual to individual, that's required for a civil penalty.
Also people are going to say shitty things. You might be able to stop some of them, but giving the State the power to roll in with a gun and do it for you is off the fucking rails.
I'm pretty sure that we have a lot of legal precedents for harm to character or psychology already, for things like defamation. Again, you're insinuating that I want Big Government to roll in and arrest people for posting Pepe memes on r/realnazis and that's not true.
What I want is some way for a citizen, who can demonstrate with a preponderance of evidence, that they were harmed by this stuff, to have some legal avenues to respond before violence happens, but after cultural pressure has failed
So how do we quantify harm though?? If we're going to do it your way, we have to prove that Person x harmed Person y in this specific way on this specific date, which can be remedied by damages of $z.zz. paid by x to y or public statement made by x or etc.
But....we do that already for a lot of things that aren't hate speech. I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure there's ways to do this.
Sure, we do it with things that we can quantify cause harm. How do you quantify it though?
You personally? If someone wears a nazi armband in front of you on the bus today, what is the dollar value of harm to you? What's the metric by which you argue to the judge that you have been harmed?
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In the latest acq inc Jim Darkmagic finds out that half-dragons exist because sometimes dragons shapeshift into humans and get pregnant and that became Jim's new fetish
the question becomes, does the dragon lay an egg as a dragon and a humanoid comes out, or do they have to stay as a human for 9 months
these are the kinds of questions that make the writers at wizards of the coast say "oh my fucking god"
But for the record, German law doesn't just ban Nazi iconography, it also bans speech that advocates violence towards, or insults the dignity of, any racial group.
If there's an example of a non-racist or progressive group that's been trod under the boot of the state in the name of German anti-hate-speech or anti-Nazi laws, I'd love to hear about it.
idk any examples but I don't speak German so it's a challenge to find you one. That it hasn't happened is no reflection on the problem of whether it can happen. Power gets used, eventually.
Russell's teapot applies here.
Not sure I agree. I think it's different to argue that the inevitable result of giving power is that it will be used.
But....I....
It has been used, to silence Nazis! And I don't look at Germany and bemoan the death of free speech because you can't be a fucking Nazi loudly and proudly
"Banning free speech will lead to bad things!"
"But it hasn't happened in Germany, which is what we want to kind of test"
"BUT IT COULD"
I'm....not really convinced that absence of evidence is somehow proof of evidence?
The disconnect here is that you are measuring only whether the effect you want is happening, and maybe not even recognizing that "chilling effect" is a thing?
Like, the harm is that the People live in a regime where some speech will inherently get you thrown in jail. That's the harm. Their society is one in which sometimes, if you say a bad thing, the government forces you to be silent or else.
Yes Nazis should be jailed and reformed, or otherwise removed from society if reform is somehow impossible.
Yes this is a thing we can do without pretty much forever.
Just because we're doing it for Nazis doesn't mean we should do it for anyone else. Nazis got their chance, then we realized they make few valid contributions to the human race.
legit question: how would you define "nazi" in law in a way that does not allow a nazi party to still exist by taking the NSDAP manifesto and find-and-replace banned terms with something else and using, I dunno, fucking pepe, instead of the flag of nazi germany, yet cannot cover things that are not nazis
how similar are their beliefs? Is a core tenant that other people are lesser, not through their actions, but by their religion or race? Do they encourage violence? Were they a member of the nazi party ten minutes ago before that was banned?
There's a pretty good number of questions you can ask to figure out if someone is a nazi, whether they have a Swastika or a cartoon frog.
Humans. He didn't find out he was half elf until he touched a grimoire he was trying to steal but was activated by his fey heritage, linking him to a fey patron, and granting access to certain powers.
Posts
it is some form of terrier that was apparently a street dog in thailand
she is now named Noodle
a testatrix is a woman who has executed a will (she is, presumably, also dead)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
The cadbury equivalent is wispa
Although cadbury is now owned by mondelez and who knows what atrocities they have perpetrated with that once-proud name
uh I think we have some but they're kinda racist-sounding these days
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
yesssss this is the good stuff
edit: the milk stuff. America makes Dark Chocolate that challenges all foreign contenders.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I heard chu once call one of them a 'quadroon'
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Uhhhh happy to be of service.
Does the dog look like this?
Because I already love this dog and I am booking a plane to thailand with forged paperwork for the dog as we speak.
why not like half elf half dwarf
No informal fallacy is. Neither are Abdhy's dogged attempts to tu quoque me upthread.
That's what makes informal fallacies informal. They aren't necessarily wrong. They're just usually wrong and they require extra work to demonstrate why any specific case is the exception.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
legit question: how would you define "nazi" in law in a way that does not allow a nazi party to still exist by taking the NSDAP manifesto and find-and-replace banned terms with something else and using, I dunno, fucking pepe, instead of the flag of nazi germany, yet cannot cover things that are not nazis
are we still talking about fantasy here
but what if that cashier was a perfect human
Racial privilege
I mainly see tone policing invoked these days as a magic incantation that wins the argument for the speaker, because the interlocutor committed the taboo of criticizing word choice
Which, yeah, is nonsense; for one thing, diction policing is not tone-of-voice policing; for another, like you said, it is not a bad-faith attempt to derail the conversation if you temporarily discuss the implications of a word choice
Administratrix is a warhammer 40k job title
Imperial Administratrix Munitorum
For seven generations your family has counted bullets in a warehouse by hand and you are thankful for this relatively posh existence
original joke do not steal
because, as I've said before, don't we even deserve villains with decent branding
they're just 2 cute innocent puppies, shaz!!!!
humans are just mad horny
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
See, this is ridiculous though, because counting the exceptions to the "c" rule gives you stuff like "policies" and "fanciest" which are clearly not meant to be covered by this rule. They're covered by another rule, which is that when you make words that end in "y" a plural or a comparative you change the "y" to an "i". So now every word that ends in "cy" that can be pluralized or changed to a comparative is suddenly an exception to the exception! No, that's stupid.
There's a reason the panel in that clip had so much trouble coming up with words at first, because everybody's trying to think of words like "ancient", where the "cie" is just part of the word, rather than an accident of conversion. A lot of the words used as examples of violations of the rule are ridiculous! Sheik? Geisha? Even setting aside the fact that those are literally words in other languages that we just use to describe the thing that they are, how often are people using those words? Counterfeit? Sovereign? These are not everyday words. Better to stick with stuff like "weird" and "height".
the half-dragon template says hello.
Sure, we do it with things that we can quantify cause harm. How do you quantify it though?
You personally? If someone wears a nazi armband in front of you on the bus today, what is the dollar value of harm to you? What's the metric by which you argue to the judge that you have been harmed?
they're called halflings you fake nerd
also original joke do not steal
quarterling, I'd assume
the question becomes, does the dragon lay an egg as a dragon and a humanoid comes out, or do they have to stay as a human for 9 months
these are the kinds of questions that make the writers at wizards of the coast say "oh my fucking god"
how similar are their beliefs? Is a core tenant that other people are lesser, not through their actions, but by their religion or race? Do they encourage violence? Were they a member of the nazi party ten minutes ago before that was banned?
There's a pretty good number of questions you can ask to figure out if someone is a nazi, whether they have a Swastika or a cartoon frog.
nah much smaller
he adopted from some shelter upstate a bit, i have no idea how the dog ended up here from thailand
they should be the weakest possible race
Humans. He didn't find out he was half elf until he touched a grimoire he was trying to steal but was activated by his fey heritage, linking him to a fey patron, and granting access to certain powers.
What if humans are the twileks of the fantasy world
We exist as a universally-fetishized fan service race for others to ogle