I could say the same with this type of ad space design, but that would be lying. Still, this really reminds me very much of some (niche to illegal) websites (example: manga scans) in the early 2000s, riddled with multiple layers of viewport sized ad divs, sometimes with no closing button. (Ads pointing to malicious sites, of course, it would be fun otherwise.) Some things don’t really change.

But… Wasn’t techradar a site with a good reputation at some point? Did some greedy org cash in on the brand image to pull this shot? (Wouldn’t be the first time. In France there’s a case of such usurpation named France Soir, but this ursurpation aimed for disinformation and hate propaganda, not just for ad revenue maxxing.) Or maybe it’s the bias caused by repetition that make me brain see this site as a reputable name. Maybe it was always this shitty.

Words are hard.

| Does anyone here think they may relate to any of these other labels?

Yeah:

• Cisn’t (I wonder what word my french fellows use for this concept.)
• Demicisgender
• Isogender
• Multigender (again, not and individual identity)
• Nonbinary (in the common umbrella meaning)

I will probably stick with “nonbinary” and “demicisgender” in most non closeted cases though. Much easier to make other understand. (And in most case I’ll just stick with “man”, because closet.) I’ll keep the lesser known terms for more detailed, deeper discussions over gender.

EDIT: OK, I just saw what “gender modality” is.

I think “gender modality” VS “gender idendity” don’t cover the cases of “genderflluid”, “nonbinary”, “a(po)gender”, “multigender”, etc very well, hence my confusion.

These are not simply identities, but also categories of identities and of configurations alike. But they’re not comparisons to the gender registered by the administration at birth (AGAB), so not “gender modalities”. Is there a third term to discuss gender configurations without comparing to AGAB?

↓ Initial message ↓

Aren’t at least “genderfluid” and “nonbinary”, and maybe “agender” (not sure) umbrella terms, though? I’d even say NB overlaps with most of the listed terms. As “bisexual” is used to described any sexual attraction profile with attraction toward more than one gender, “nonbinary” is also commonly used for any gender profile that doesn’t fit the traditional binary model.

“thinking sex is the main driver in a relationship” Yeah, this belief is too widespread. I feel for ace folks. And for aro folks too, since the same take is often made about romantic love. (Disclaimer: I’m neither.)

There are many potential driving factors in relationships. Can be sex, can be romantic love, can be another kind of love, can be trust, etc. Also, friendship is a perfectly valid kind of relationship too.

It can also be harmful things in the case of toxic relationship. Example: being convinced one’s partner will cheat because they’re bi. But as such relationships mostly bring harm, they’re best avoided. (Not easy because of psychological control/domination mechanics.)

I don’t even intend to come out to my family. (That statement does not only apply to my orientation.) And it wouldn’t help that they’ve never seen me in relationship with someone not perceived as a woman. (Although I’ve been perceived as a gay man at some times for reasons I don’t really know.)

What was I trying to say? That I sympathise with you.

(Joke comment.) If I count facial hair, I have several hair colours. I won’t be cheated on by my partn… oh, I’m the bi poly one in the couple, and she only has one colour. (Or two, because of our age.) Shit I’m essetially condemned to cheat on her with a rainbow wig. (End of the joke.)

Yeah, and strangely none among the cheaters and the cheating apologists I personnally know claimed to be anything other than mono cishet. Strange (sarcasm) how direspectful and harmful behaviour linked to an expression of power are most seem in the dominant group.

“Chocolatine”, “pain au chocalat”, “croissant au chocolat”, ou “petit pain”? (Edit to answer: all are valid, it is simply a regional dialect thing.) Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? (Edit to answer: it depends on the field. A vegetable in gastronomy, a fruit in biology, where “vegetable” doesn’t even exist.)

Your interventions on the topic of biphobia are as valuable as these pseudo-debates. Keep your language normative freezing for your own expression, instead of policing the language of other people, and diverting from the heart of the discussed topic (again, biphobia).

EDIT: and I will not engage with you anymore.

From what I know of the word “discrimination”, potustheplant probably is pedantic about one specific definition of this word, which is the legalese one in some places : take the #2 definition in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimination, then require that the author is a company or an administration (or any of their representatives).

I looked at their post history, and they seem to often post condescending comments.

Anyway, when responding to a critic of harmful behaviours, one should not forcefully displace the focus from said harmful behaviours to the pedantics of the vocabulary used to describe them. That’s just a diversion tactic to avoid discussing the subject’s core. Those who do it, like potustheplant : cease !

“Well, in this case we already have a word with a prefectly appropriate meaning.”

For the common meaning of “biphobia”? Which preexisting word is perfectly appropriate to describe the exact same concept that the word “biphobia” was coined for?

Those men in the example are also misogynistic at the same time.

Nothing surprising, since different kinds of scorns, hates, discriminations, etc often come together.

Sociology concepts named “something-phobia” are not the same thing as the similarly named concepts (classified in the “phobia” family) in psychology and psychatry.

Usually, meaning can vary with context. The discussed field in such a context.

When does a use different from the most ancient one stop being called a “misuse”? Especially talking about not a word, but its etymology?

Pretty sure a significant quantity of the words you use were at some point described as “misuses”, “mistakes”, or something similar.

I say that as someone who hates seeing/hearing scandals be called “something-gate” in reference to Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Same with “something-ception” in reference to the movie Inception. So I understand the feeling, but this kind of take mostly contribute to elitism.

What matters most in any language is the ability to communicate, not the conformity to a (potentially idealised) static snapshot of the language rules.

Reminder of my only two previous comments in this topic:

Both can be true.

and

I’d understand if these tools were small scale, eco-friendly, ethically developped and trained, and owned by the workers.

Considering most LLM and AI/AI-adjacent tools used are large-scale tools created and owned by big greedy corporations, I’d say the tools themselves are a product of late stage capitalism, thus the bad results they produce are results of simultaneoulsly :

• the tools themselves
• why they were created
• how they were created
• why they are used
• how they are used
• …
• late stage capitalism (which also influnce the previous items)

End of the reminder.

Your answer to that was:

You started by saying they produce the issues, but are now explaining what I said above, that they are a product of upstream social issues.

What motivated my answer is:

Most events have multiple causes and multiple consequences. All of them can also interfere with each other. They can form retroaction loops too.

What I was explicitely saying is:

These tools were created and specialised for late-stage capitalism goals. There will be some common consequences, including bad ones, between usage by the big corpos and usage by random persons, whatever their skills. That’s why I said that both these takes are true:

The output of LLMs is massively increased global warming, increased prices of goods and services, decreased number of jobs, increased numbers of bugs in software, massive increase in wealth migration from poor to the rich, and increased surveillance. None of that has to do with the quality of the users. Just using it at all results in all of those things.

and

those things are the outputs out late-stage capitalism.

It seems that we disagree about my view, but don’t attribute to me shit I didn’t say to fight this false argument.

So…

Is this worth discussing.

Apparently no, at least not when you oversimplify causality and misrepresent what I said. Still worth argumenting for others to have more arguments to weight.

Now, this discussion looks to me like the stupid “debate” around “guns kill people” VS “guns don’t kill, only the people using them do” in the specific context of gun control laws.

And also, fuck capitalism, and other systems of exploitation, oppression, domination.

I’d understand if these tools were small scale, eco-friendly, ethically developped and trained, and owned by the workers.

Considering most LLM and AI/AI-adjacent tools used are large-scale tools created and owned by big greedy corporations, I’d say the tools themselves are a product of late stage capitalism, thus the bad results they produce are results of simultaneoulsly :

• the tools themselves
• why they were created
• how they were created
• why they are used
• how they are used
• …
• late stage capitalism (which also influnce the previous items)

Both can be true.

Agreed. Still incomplete, especially around romantic orientations, but very good news indeed…

In other words, claiming to be “apolitical” (whatever that means) is a political stance.

From what I understand, that flaw can be lessened (not voided) by using sociology instead of eugenics/pseudobiology. So-called “races” as social constructs, or “perceived races” are less based on discrimination. This concepts can instead describe the existing discrimination. That does not nullify your point, by the way, it just dampens the flaw you pointed to.

Also : please re-read this lemmy community rules, as I just did, because you pushing the idea that only church have meaningful communities is not really compatible with the claimed goals of this community. (Me engaging in a debate with you seeam to also break a rule. Sorry fellow atheists and apostates.)