dandelion

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

it's a lot less controversial when phrased as euthanasia should be an option as a part of palliative care ...

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago

no, this is patrick

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

right wing politics promotes rigid gender norms

including that only men should be muscular

so muscular women are masculine

and men attracted to a masculine person are gay

nevermind that these are the same people who want to rigidly define women by their gametes, chromosomes, or other biological characteristics (not how buff they are, or how masculine they present)

or that these are the same people who came up with the idea that everyone is straight to begin with ("gay" being a sinful behavior, nobody being born gay)

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

I was relating a little too much and got excited finding something so niche but relatable, expecting this was in a meme community and then facepalmed on the inside when I saw the community 🫠

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I was imagining in my example that "green" might be adopted to mean red only in certain contexts, like used ironically or humorously to mean red, not in a way that erased or overrode the word's general meaning as green. This is to match the symmetry of misused words like gyatt that continue to have their original meaning and use, but get warped into a new meaning through misuse and then adoption of that misuse in a certain context, such as among white children on Fortnite.

As opposed to a complete inversion or change of the meaning of the word such that "green" would no longer mean green anymore but only mean red (this of course could still happen, it just wasn't the kind of case I was trying to illustrate).

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago

🤢🤢🤢

you need to teach your kids about consent

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

I am not sure that's true, language can absolutely be misused, when an individual uses a word in a way nobody recognizes, it fails to function as language and is worth considering genuinely misused. It's only when a "misuse" gains enough traction that people can effectively use it to communicate that it is an evolution rather than a misuse.

The point is that the language is about use, e.g. getting a concept across, and it can absolutely fail or be applied incorrectly.

Take for example if a variety of mugs are on a table and I wanted the red mug. If I said "pass me the green mug", that would be a misuse of "green" as meaning red, and it would fail to communicate, as long as there are other mugs and my meaning cannot be inferred.

If there is clearly only one mug, a person might think I was mistaken or colorblind and still get my intended meaning, but it would still be considered a misuse of "green".

If enough people used "green" to mean red, maybe because my family thought the mistake was funny and adopted "green" to mean red as an in-joke, it might grow out of being a misuse into a new meaning.

The same thing is happening when white children misuse AAVE and generate slang, "gyatt" for example meaning "god" as in "gyatt damn" becomes mistakenly applied to mean a butt because of misunderstanding about how gyatt was originally used. The misuse becomes new slang, but it could have easily remained an obscure and forgotten misuse if it didn't catch-on with enough people such that it took on a new meaning.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

right, but when pedantically correcting the idea that pollen isn't an example of dimorphic reproduction, making gross generalizations like that seems strangely out of place, since the whole issue they took in the first place was a (mostly true / appropriate) generalization ...

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I think your response makes the most sense, it feels like Blahaj has gained a reputation of intolerance, but OP seems a little confused and maybe thinks it's about the community here rather than a specific moderation policy choice, and that the community thinks the moderation policy reflects how we should treat imperfect allies generally?

It's not clear, so while I think defending the moderation policy is the best immediate response to the question (since it responds to our reputation), I wanted to give OP an opportunity to parse this in other directions, in case challenging our policies was not the intent.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 weeks ago

this is such a great response, and thank you for all the work you do to create a safe space 🥰💞💖

view more: ‹ prev next ›