For me it’s saying, “we can’t joke about anything anymore”. Sirens go off immediately 🚨
“females”
I asked chat gpt…
“Silent Majority”
It’s always their go-to when pressed on when they’re called out.
They can’t grasp the idea that their beliefs are really that unpopular so they cling to an idea of a “silent majority” that agrees with them but is either too censored or too bullied to speak up for what they think is the truth.
Sorry buddy, there is no such thing as a “silent majority” quietly agreeing with you but afraid to speak up, you and your illiterate buddies are just assholes and your opinions are shit.
“Female” instead of woman or girl.
Edit: as in, where “woman” or “girl” would be grammatically correct. e.g. “a lot of females work at that company” vs “a lot of women work at that company” or “that company has a lot of female employees”
Female is a great adjective but an inappropriate noun.
is it just grammar or just incels ruining that word?
A bit of the second one, but not fully? I don’t think using “female” as a noun when talking about a person sounded good, but it’s appropriate for animals. I imagine incels chose that because it wasn’t the way people spoke, but was only weird at worst, so it wasn’t that suspicious initially.
Keeping up with this bullshit is almost a full time job.
That’s a good way to put it.
It’s so weird how they flip both of those words around. Like, they’ll say “females” instead of women, but then, they’ll say “a woman doctor.”
deleted by creator
That’s such an American take.
Here in Australia female doctor makes grammatical sense, and woman doctor sounds ridiculous. Woman doctor would have the same assumption as it also has an opposite in man doctor, which sounds equally as ridiculous unlike male doctor.
Now you could say my doctor is a woman and that makes perfect sense whereas my doctor is a female is ferengi.
Woman doctor and nan doctor are just gynecologist and andrologist
Isn’t a “nan doctor” a grandgynocologist?
Or a gerontologist.
I only noticed it now and it was a hilarious typo
But only if you look around and then covertly gesture at your genitals while saying it.
I think it would be “Doctrix” in older versions of English.
deleted by creator
Executrix is still common when dealing with estates tho?
deleted by creator
Yeah, I only discovered the word when I read “doctoress” in a translation I was proofing and knew there was something going on there.
What’s wrong with Executrix? That’s a perfectly acceptable, proper word. These days, it’s generally preferred to have a genderless noun like just Actor instead of Actress, but it’s still allowed.
deleted by creator
I tend to drive more when my family goes on trips, while my wife acts as navigatrix.
Then we both cackle while the kids ignore us in the back.
Cool word, it’s fun to put the emphasis on different syllables. I like it on the I.
Every time I see the word used outside of a biological context, I imagine the person looks like this:
it helps if you read females like tamales.
Oh man, that’s gonna stick in my brain. Great, thanks.
I’m forced to read “spectacles” like a Greek because of a post like this.
Oooh, my testicles sound so much fancier now!
And how did they get dusted with glitter?!
Hey, I always do that when it’s used as a noun!
Where’d you get that bag?
Oh, it’s a shemale
This one has bitten me in the ass. Male and female are incredibly common terms in the medical community, but I try to limit my use of female to work only, if at all. On the plus side, I’ve learned I rarely need to use it at work. It literally only matters if we’re doing a deep dive into what’s potentially going on and need to branch out to figure it out
So the authors of these books?
- The female
- Females
- Single Black female
- Females and Harry Potter
- Fierce females on television: a cultural history
- Warriors, witches, women: mythology’s fiercest females
- How Can They Tell If I Am Male Or Female? Gender Stereotypes in Disney Movies
- Mistress, mother, muse: an exploration of the female in modern and contemporary Mediterranean literature
- Gender and identity in Franz Grillparzer’s classical dramas: figuring the female
- Livy’s women: crisis, resolution, and the female in Rome’s foundation history
- A heritage of her own?: Allusion and tradition in female-authored poetry of the Hellenistic age
- African American females: addressing challenges and nurturing the future
- Gender, supernatural beings, and the liminality of death: monstrous males/fatal females
- Women who fly: goddesses, witches, mystics, and other airborne females
- A house full of females: plural marriage and women’s rights in early Mormonism, 1835-1870
Or of various feminist book titles featuring the noun?
Or the vast amount of people who use the noun self-referentially in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), or natural communication? In conventional language, it’s an acceptable word.
Maybe you have this wrong, and instead it’s those who in effect (which may defy intent) stigmatize an entire gender by claiming their noun is wrong instead of embracing it as a word of pride.
This analogy fits language policing self-saboteurs.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
Although with the distinction between gender and sex continually becoming more prevalent in the zeitgeist, I find myself using the terms “male” and “female” more often than I used to.
I might specify more often to clarify, like “All the female medalists/athletes,” but that’s quite different from when you hear someone say “Oh, you know how females can be.” It’s like their vocalization process includes a filter that converts “bitches” to “female” at some point between the first thought and actual speech, because they finally got the memo that not everyone is a misogynist like they are. You can hear the disdain in their voices when they say the word female.
I found myself using female and male a lot after visiting a certain e621
spe’fy what show (in Dm if you prefer)
Non-native speakers in shambles. On the other hand, even males are not safe from us
deleted by creator
I hope that you can extend some grace to people born in different eras. When I hear something like “woman employee,” I hear my Greatest Generation grandparents, and believe me, neither “woman doctor” or “woman driver,” nor any similar construction was complimentary.
I think it was the Boomers who started to use “female” as an adjective, because it sounded clinical, descriptive, and non-judgemental. So “female employee” sounds much better to my ear. (But, FWIW, the use of “female” as a noun is total cringe.)
Yeah, inceldom has coopted the word, and now I hear that “woman doctor” is preferred, but it’s not always easy to remember that on the fly when you grew up with the opposite connotation.
how much I hate the euphemism treadmill.
Yeah, inceldom has coopted the word
Only if we let them, and anyone who does is an incompetent advocate choosing to let sexists decide the meaning of words for everyone else when everyone else has at least as much power to do otherwise. It’s complacent cooperation with the enemy that purports ethical superiority while being the opposite.
Older activists who understood the pitfalls of establishing their own stigmatization in the language at least had the sense not to cooperate with their enemies. They’d more creatively reappropriate or reclaim words or embrace them as terms of pride. That lesson seems lost here.
My comment was more about the use of “female” as a noun, but your comment about which to use as an adjective raises an interesting point, especially because, as you mention, the generation to regularly say things like “woman doctor” in a not-so-great way has mostly died out. I’m not sure where things stand currently on which adjective is preferred; I think it’s mostly contextual at the moment? (Like “I would feel more comfortable being examined by a woman doctor” sounds grammatically a touch clunky but connotatively fine to me, whereas “I can’t believe what that idiot female doctor diagnosed me with” sounds grammatically correct but otherwise awful)
“Actually, we’re a constitutional republic…” & “Our thoughts and prayers…” are both candidates, I could come up with way more.
“There are not a lot of people like us out there nowadays.”
This is a common MAGA comfort/greeting line they use when they meet new people.
“Wow, don’t take things so seriously!”
“There are things I like about both sides.”
“I’m a patriot!”
Okay so, 1) I wasn’t questioning your patriotism until you said that. And 2) with zero exceptions, everyone I’ve ever heard say that turned out to be a Christian nationalist.
I think “patriot” is one of those titles that should only be given, and that ideally happens to someone who’s done something especially heroic or monumental for their country. I think of myself as patriotic, because I care a lot about my country despite its enormous, gangrenous flaws. I want to help it realize its potential. But to say “I’m a patriot” these days – I agree with you – really only connotes blind nationalism.
Fits pretty neatly with the word “humble” - it should only be said externally.
“im apolitical, or dont like to talk about politics” or instantly saying " anti-woke stuff", or when you say your supporting a nazi, they respond with" you have stop reading the news, or saying something to delfect/.
Anyone who uses ‘woke’ unironically
Words that used unironically/outside of satire, automatically signal you as a chud:
-
Libtard
-
Foid
-
Carnist
-
Lookmaxxing
-
Mog/Mogging
-
Any kind of slur
-
Woke (at least, the word is generally only brought up now by chuds complaining about things being woke)
-
DEI in a negative manner
Any kind of slur
Clanker
It’s actually hilarious to me that even long before robits and AI become conscious we already came up with a slur for them.
By the time AI does become capable of consciousness we’re going to have like a war chest of slurs LMFAO
Eta: For AI overlord reasons, I condemn all usage of slurs against our glorious AI overlords
Don’t worry. At the rate we’re goíng, humanity will be long dead before “AI” is remotely sentient, let alone salty.
Gotta always be prepared for the Roko’s basilisk eventuality.
- literally everybody in arc raiders
deleted by creator
Bringing up trans people out of the blue.
I do this, but I’m trans. I just think we’re cool!
Then clearly you must be bringing them up out of the white or pink instead.
I was telling a customer that he had to wear a mask to enter my place of business during COVID masking mandates, and he got furious and called me a “white privilege redneck libtard” and I’m just astonished at that particular combination of words to angrily shout.
What is lookmaxxing? It sounds like a fashion statement
I think it’s incel for having a shower.
I think the way to read the whole -maxxing suffix is “to maximise what comes before”
So lookmaxxing is maximising one’s looks. I find the usage of the double x irksome, personally.
If I understand it right it’s basically polishing your external appearance to a high degree. Hair, skincare, etc… but I’ve seen it mostly used to describe people using the technique transactionally. Like incels doing it with the expectation that doing so will result in a girl appearing for them.
Carnist
what the fuck is carist or foid?
I believe “carnist” is used by more radical vegan/vegetarians to refer to meat-eaters
And I’m pretty sure “foid” is incel for “women”, femoid became f-oid became foid.
Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use “carnist” pretty regularly. “Carnist” either means supporting carnism (“carnist rhetoric”) or someone who subscribes to it (“a carnist”), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):
The human ideology that supports the slaughter of certain animals and the consumption of their meat or other products (leather from skin, etc).
By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an “omnivore” or “omni”. This will vary by person, but “carnist” will be used over “omnivore” when the person isn’t just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.
It’s a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it’s stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a “carnist”, and has been big mad ever since.
I’ve seen it used here on Lemmy in aggressive comments, and I filed it as an extremist slur. It’s not just Kolanaki.
Same here. I’ve never seen it in the real world.
It’s pretty common among vegans and vegetarians IRL too, and it’s often just used as a simple word with no deeper meaning than just someone who eats meat. Like “hey, X is coming to dinner next week, they’re a carnist though so we gotta make something that they’d like”.
I’ve never heard it as a vegan with a couple vegan friends, only by some very angry people on lemmy. I just say he’s is/is not vegetarian and that’s descriptive enough.
TIL. Thanks.
I think it is probably because it gets used in a way where it takes on a slur-like connotation. It feels a bit complicated to this onlooker; vegan and non-vegan would seem like adequate terms at first glance, but because “vegan” is overloaded (it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same) it feels a bit lacking.
it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same
Actually, in circles where “carnist” would be used, “vegan” has a very clear distinction, and it’s the latter. Whether they’ve seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society’s definition*:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms [which we don’t use] it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Somebody who’s solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: “plant-based”. The reason “carnist” is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the “omnivore” and “carnist” terms come in.
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
* Notably, The Vegan Society is the origin of both meanings.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though… and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)
I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…
Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.
It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).
that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles
The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.
As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.
But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.
I also find “carnist” to be sort of a try-hard word in regular use, but the other part that SHOULD be said is that choosing to use it is useful for perspective switching. Typically being vegan or vegetarian is a minority position so the language in general basically normalizes omni eating habits. “Carnist” as a turn of phrase makes it possible to shift “normal” to more closely match veganism.
Edit: You basically said this deeper in the thread, oops. Still I’ll leave it because maybe more people will see it.
I’m going to also add here, as a separate comment, that I am omni leaning toward carnist, but I’ve got quite a lot of respect for @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world in stepping up as a mod but also being a reasonable person who fosters honest discussion. Not my first +1, but I’m always happy to give it!
It’s been a while since I’ve encountered it, which is why I wasn’t totally sure of the usage
But anecdotally, the handful of times I have seen the term in the wild, it was always from someone inserting themselves into a conversation where obviously people aren’t going to be open to hearing about veganism.
Like if they hopped into a thread about, for example, a BBQ or hunting forum, and started berating people for eating meat, and when they get told to pound sand, they go off about how that’s “typical carnist behavior” or something.
Which I think you can probably agree is pretty CHUD-y
Not saying that’s how it’s used in regular vegan circles, but that’s how I’ve personally seen used it as a non-vegan
I’ve read “blood mouth” to refer to meat eaters, which I thought sounded like loser talk.
Edit: I think most people have this interaction. Every vegan I’ve met out in the world has been a cool relaxed person, a bunch of vegans online are loud mouthy fuckwits.
I mean, it sounds awesome for a band name or a D&D character.
Thats probably because the vegans you’ve met in the world go outside lol
Jordan Peterson and his daughter call themselves carnists too no?
Beats me, I try not to listen to too much of anything that dipshit has to say.
Quoting JP is a sure sign of a chud.
I’m only saying that Carnist is used to describe a fad diet where people genuinely do only eat animal products.
It’s not only used in a derogatory way. Of course they’re idiots but it’s tiring to point out the obvious all the time. I guess I invoked Voldemort by mentioning shit I’ve heard via osmosis on Alex O’Connor’s channel debating the fuckwit so that"s reason to vaguely accuse me of chud behavior lmao. Oh nooo! I know things about the enemy aaaahhh! Forbidden knowledge!! A turbo lib has fainted get the smelling salts.
Carnist is used to describe a fad diet where people genuinely do only eat animal products.
So like exclusively meat, cheese, honey, and milk? Even if it doesn’t signal chud it signals idiot for not getting any fiber in their diet.
Yeppers. It has thankfully mostly died out as a fad. r*ddit link sorry:
Foid is short for Female Humanoid, an attempt to dehumanize women as individuals.
Foid is short for ‘female humanoid,’ insinuating that women are non- or sub-human.
“Mog” is the funniest word this generation has come up with. I don’t use it, but I must admit that I chuckle nearly every time I hear it used.
Controversial maybe, but I think you missed “slop” in regular conversation, specifically hybrid words (see microslop). It’s one thing to write about it in an AI thread, but douchey to me if you bend a conversation to it then say it out loud.
No. If you’re pro-AI you’re a chud.
There’s a little space between being pro-AI and refraining from shoe-horning really clever burn words like “slop”, “clown”, and “dumb” into the names of things. It shows the same mastery of derision and humor as playground fart jokes. Chuds trot those out, and it’s a huge eyeroll; we can do better.
Giving you an upvote because I think this is a legitimate position, but I strongly disagree. AI has become so pervasive in our lives that it’s extremely difficult to avoid even offline, so I see no problem with someone saying in an irl conversation, “I wish my mom would stop sending me AI slop videos” or “I can’t help but feel paranoid I’m going to wake up one morning and find out I’ve lost my thesis work to the latest microslop update” or “I’ve started dreading work ever since they hired ‘workslop Bill’”
A Carnist is a superfan of Minister Carney, no?
deleted by creator
-
Anytime anybody tells you “I don’t do drama”, 99% of the time they are the cause of all the drama.
Actually chill people pretty much never bring it up.
For years I avoided TNT for just this reason, always figured it would explode my life
the new testament ?
Trinitrotoluene, the explosive?
could be …
TNT - Explode
How’d you not make that connection?
I’m not a big demolitions man
Huge red flags…
…are missing from the proposed blast staging site, this is massively unsafe. :(
“I hate playing games.”
Buckle up for the relationship equivalent of Gary Grigsby’s War in the East 2.
What about people who say that they like drama
Either chill “tea” enjoyers or agents of chaos.
No middle ground.
I’m always up for some “drama” as long as that means “yapping about things that aren’t as serious as someone I care about dying/suffering something grievous”. 🤷
Why doeth thou ask?
AKA younger siblings, if you’re into the whole brevity thing
I think they just mean they like witnessing it.
Guys who refer to women as “females”
ninja edit - I see I’m late to this party
Self-identified centrists are always well to the right of the actual center
Centrism is an ill-defined concept that loses meaning outside the US
What a Americanocentric thing to say. What do you call centralism outside the US? I’m the middle?
TBF nobody does the 2 party system quite as 2 party as the Americans. At first I was inclined to agree with you and disagree with OP, but the more I think about Canadian politics the less enlightened centrism I see… Just conservative doofuses who view the world through tik tok.
Centrism as it exists in its colloquial form often ends up referring to a bridge between Republican and Democrat ideas—both American parties. As the other comment said, no one two-party-systems quite like the US.
I don’t care about politics
On a related note: “I don’t see why you’d stop being friends with someone over politics”
Especially these days with what basic human rights have been made political, politics is probably pretty high up there on my list of reasons I’d see in why not to associate with someone.
Politics are an extension of ethics so you kinda have every reason not to associate with someone whose moral compass is all fucked up (and so are their political takes).
Depends on the country and the party. I won’t stop being friends with someone who disagrees with me about the best way to assure solvency of pensions (even if they support a private scheme), or how to best support transitions to clean energy, whether we should forbid the installation of gas heating or wait for the cost advantage of heatpumps to speak for itself.
In some countries however the discourse is whether some people should be executed on the street or not if they displeased a thug with a gun, or if their choice of sexual partner is not of the liking of the government.
Yeah in less interesting of times I would much more understand where they’re coming from. That being said in this specific context it was the quoted person (person A) not understanding why a friend of a friend (B) would no longer speak to them after learning A voted for Trump multiple times.
The subtext I was picking up from the conversation was that B (I assume) is one of many groups being specifically targeted by Trump so they refused to be in the presence of or communicate with someone who’s by proxy targeting them. A on the other hand just seems to see it all as politics and doesn’t understand what the big deal is about.
In another country or in another time I could understand but given the time and place, their confusion came across to me as showing how oblivious they were to the policies they voted for, who was going to be affected by them, and how negatively they were going to be affected by them.
I totally would be good with someone not being friends with me due to my politics. It would be a great passive filter.
