• 0 Posts
  • 87 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 1st, 2024

help-circle



  • It’s completely context dependent; you’re right that using male/female is appropriate for humans in certain contexts, e.g., medical usage (“Patient, a 47yo female, presented with…”). But it is — for cultural and historical reasons — generally considered inappropriate to refer to our fellow humans that way in conversation.

    Re: mutt, fair enough. Bitch/stud are examples of how animal terms, when applied to humans, take on very different meanings. Purebred is afaik not specific to species, but it is wildly inappropriate to refer to people as such.

    At the end of the day, the logic behind what is and is not appropriate has history behind it; animal terms have been used extensively to refer to subjugated peoples; it may be scientifically accurate but that doesn’t mean that it’s inoffensive.


  • Of course we’re animals, but let’s use some common sense wrt cultural norms here. A dog of mixed lineage is mutt, but it’s completely inappropriate to refer to a multiracial person as such. A female dog is a bitch, a male is a stud; the sexism is pretty obvious when applied to humans. It’s fine to talk about owning a dog; it’s not ok to talk about owning another human (except perhaps children, in certain contexts).

    Yes, we are animals too, but that doesn’t mean we should talk about each other in the same way. (And I say this as a vegetarian who thinks we should treat all animals with significantly more respect than we currently do.)














  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.websitetoMemes@lemmy.mloctopus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    My favorite hypercorrection (a hyperforeignism, if you like) is “habañero,” and really stressing the “ñ” when you say it.

    Except it’s just “habanero,” plain ol’ “n.” The confusion is presumably due to “jalapeño” having an accent.


  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.websitetoMemes@lemmy.mlBacon tho
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Imagine I have two choices: end world hunger, or end world hunger and kick a puppy. If I choose to end world hunger but also kick a puppy…well I’m kinda a dick, right? Ultimately I did a very good thing ending word hunger, so on balance, my actions are “net positive.” But the choice I actually made was to kick a puppy.

    Now, I need to eat. So I have a choice: eat yummy food and don’t kill an animal, or eat yummier food and do kill and animal. The choice I’m effectively faced with is, “kill an animal for better taste.”

    It’s totally up to you to decide if that is a good choice for you personally.

    If course it’s not always so simple, and there are financial, cultural, and health reasons that complicate this. But for some folks (like myself) that’s kinda how I view it.