Post needs accessibility.

This comment section: people who’ve never cracked open an economics textbook or seriously thought about this.

Intermediaries can bring down distribution costs. It’s pretty easy to see how.

Consider N farmers & M markets: that results in NM trips to distribute all their goods to every market. Add a single intermediary: this reduces to N + M trips to distribute goods. This reduces overhead costs. The farmer can sell in bulk to the intermediary. The intermediary can ship in bulk goods of all farmers to the markets. Less fuel & time is wasted transporting everything.

Partners can specialize in their respective tasks. Farmers don’t need to rent booths, put their goods on display, wait there all day, or handle all the customers at each market.

Imagine not claiming female as a word of pride but instead trying to realize some inferiority complex by promoting the establishment of sexist language that makes the word for an entire gender a demeaning slur.

Needs alt text.

I don’t go to sites full of ads, or if I do, I just switch to reader mode and poof better readability without ads.

I really want to upvote this, but it lacks alt text. 😞

U MAD, bruh?

facts about natural processes don’t need “justification”

rage bait

that’s in the eye of the beholder & Y U MAD, THO?

I didn’t know I liked Taylor Swift until now. Still needs alt text.

First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules.

All natural languages work the same way. Some institution claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.

aren’t turning the word into a pejorative

Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: from an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.

Our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, yet these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?

Older activists understood that doesn’t serve them and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead. Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to establish sexist language as normative, they could try not playing themselves.

The rest you wrote is misguided opinion you’d ironically perpetuate.

the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population

Counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, female is inoffensive. That includes among females themselves. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word.

I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly

Logic has no sex. You’d be wise not to internalize & promote sexism.

then it’s an unsettled contest between a split community

a language’s community isn’t bound by any rules: it’s free to change a language however it chooses

I’ve found a language policing minority on here try to pejorate female as derogatory, and I explain to them that by trying to induct sexist presuppositions into the language they’re either sexist or playing themselves

yes, conventions (which include natural language) work that way: the community of users sets the convention

what if I told you images can have alt text?

The rough gist I’m getting is some poorly substantiated claim of ignorance of general exploitation as worse than overt abuse of human rights, eg

Yes, comrade, I’m locking you up and abusing your fundamental rights, but think how bad you’d have it free, doing the same work with a better standard of living & lower economic inequality while whining about exploitation!

Perhaps workers could earn better without “exploitation” in liberal democracies, but historical record & economic data show the opposite:

• the Soviet system stagnated & deteriorated behind liberal democratic counterparts at living standards & economic growth while still exploiting workers & abusing their fundamental rights
• several liberal democracies continue to achieve lower economic inequality & better living standards than communist states.

The Soviet Union gave up & dismantled itself for this reason. There was no tradeoff of human rights abuses somehow yielding a better life for a less exploited, average worker. For all its rhetoric, the Soviet workers got the worst of everything.

Per the philosophy of social democracies, socialism doesn’t require human rights abuses. Authorities abusing human rights are definitely worse than authorities not doing that & letting people fail on their own terms. In the case of those liberal democracies beating the performance of communist states, those “exploited” workers are freer & doing better than the “unexploited” ones. Given the results, it’s hard to find your notion of “exploitation” credible: I think it’s full of shit & mostly in your deluded theory that’s failing to bear out.

So

a government authority takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse

you depress yourself about having to work & pay for shit or deal with your feelings

same thing! 😊

I can’t believe everyone who buys this equivalence bullshit of illegitimate abuse & coercion in one case and lack thereof in the other. It’s like they have some submission kink to getting dominated.

It’s entirely different when the government authority not only says it but takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse. How are so many here missing that crucial distinction?

It’s entirely different when the government authority not only says it but takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse. How are so many here missing that crucial distinction?

How do people avoid smelling their own farts? Do they run away?

Principally because I don’t know who those bitches are.

That’s still pretty normal. People (think they) feel how others do. It takes effort & practice to dissociate and try not to feel.

Not necessarily. It usually means somewhat selflessly feeling or understanding how they might feel enough to care about their wellbeing & treat them compassionately.

If you’re selective about the recipients of your empathy (eg, only those you care about or near you), then you’re not really an empath or a good one. Buddhists had empathy & compassion figured out. Jesus stated it, too, with love your enemies. I’ve frequently seen people try to wield empathy as a cudgel and miss the point.

You just described abilities within the normal range of interpersonal skills: reading emotions. That doesn’t imply feeling them.

OP was ridiculing the projection of emotions people don’t necessarily have but that the subject arrogantly assumes they do.