around the world
IME it's a uniquely American joke.
scubbo
joined 5 years ago
From my knowledge of them (which is sadly non-zero), I think Ben Shapiro fits the first description better.
"You used to be a child once, so you aren't allowed to be frustrated at any behaviours of children or choices of their caregivers" sure is a perspective.
Yes, I was once a child. And if my parents had taken me on a flight before I was sufficiently mature not to yell during it, they would have been being irresponsible and selfish. "Babies scream, sometimes there's nothing you can do to stop them" is true, but doesn't imply that you should be allowed to take them anywhere.
Personally I (a straight person) use it in an attempt to normalize the term, so that people who want to conceal the gender of their partner have plausible deniability. If all straight people say "girlfriend/boyfriend", then anyone saying "partner" is outed as "a non-straight person trying to conceal the fact".
EDIT: but also, it connotes a deeper level of trust, support, intimacy, etc. A "girlfriend" is some chick I fool around and have some fun with; a "partner" is someone with whom I'm building a life together.
The Vegan Society says that "In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Vegan.com says "The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products."
Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.
It's all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one's choices than simply "meat bad" - and that's a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe "ethically aligned with Veganism", but not "a vegan diet".
EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It's a noble choice, it's one I fully support, and I've seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I'm not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I'm arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.
You got it!
I love Python, it's probably my favourite language, but I'll be the first to admit that its fast-and-loose style can make certain kinds of errors easier to make and harder to notice/fix. Glad this can help a little!
Can you talk more about this? I've never heard that tagline and can't figure out what it's supposed to mean.
The mental gymnastics here are fascinating. It's as if you thought "Veganism has good effects. Therefore, Veganism is good. Therefore, not-Veganism is bad. But people will be offended if we tell them that their well-intentioned-but-restricted choices are bad. So we should expand the definition of Veganism so that anything which is good, is Veganism."
Congratulations! You made it a religion!
I have very little to add to this excellent comment, other than my heartfelt praise. Thank you.
nobody I deal with in RL ever implied something among the lines of "refer to me as ".
Most likely because they'd never experienced someone referring to them by the wrong gender. You can be pretty sure that if someone started doing so, they'd have something to say about it.
Which is what the other commenter was trying to communicate to you. Gender is already a key component of most cis people's personality - the way they think about themselves, the framework they use to make choices, and the way they want people to relate to them - but it's not noticed as such, because it's "normal", so no-one comments on it and they don't have to act to assert it.
They said unpopular opinions :P
No-one's claiming that it's unreasonable or unprecedented for kids to be noisy and disruptive due to (among other reasons) still-developing brains that can't fully process social norms and responsibilities.
We're saying that, given that everyone knows that fact, the parents who choose to bring poorly-behaved kids onto planes are being selfish and irresponsible.
The kids are mostly blameless in these situations - they're still developing, they can't (depending on age) be expected to be fully responsible. It's the parents that are selfish shitbags.