Remember that the existing consensus was also created by scientists with political and social motivations who made plenty of assumptions about gender.
A challenge to the status quo isn't automatically biased just because it challenges the status quo.
Exactly. And I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't even know what feminist means to make accurate statements about gender.
Because dictionaries reflect how people use words, and people use the words that way.
Webster also lists "octopi" as a plural of octopus, which is completely wrong because the plural of pus is podes. But people say "octopi" anyway, so you'll find it in the dictionary.
I made no accusation. I just mocked your absolutely bonkers comment saying that Jill Stein publicly sitting down and spending time with Putin proves that she is not affiliated with Putin. The term "wild and unsubstantiated" is something you might want to reflect deeply upon.
We're speaking English, so no, although it's commonly accepted. If you're speaking Latin, though...
What wild accusation did I make? Show me please.
Oh man, what a defense!
"Your honor, if I was the murderer, why would I have been at the scene of the crime, holding the murder weapon in my hand? I mean, that would be too obvious!"
Lol I haven't laughed so hard all day! Thank you, I needed that.
You still haven't provided any good evidence, which was the entire point of this thread. The more you whine and behave dishonestly without actually putting up evidence, the more you prove everyone else's point.
More "no u" even to the point of throwing "no u" back at me. It's like talking with a 3 year old. Be better than this.
When challenged to provide one, just one, piece of good evidence, what do you come back with?
Not evidence. But a weak-ass excuse. It doesn't get any more pathetic than this.
Like literally all anyone is asking for is good evidence, and you brought nothing but whining. All we want is evidence.
EVIDENCE.
These "red line" commenters are so blinded by their own purity tests that they can't see they're actually supporting the greater genocide. Every thread here on lemmy is full of them, and they all make the same case, but they refuse to acknowledge the actual reality, which is that not voting for the one person who has an actual chance to beat Trump, they're actually supporting him. Not as much as they would if they actually voted for him, but still significantly.
If Trump wins by a narrow margin, it will be because of these red-liners who valued their own purity over the lives of others.