The word “means” is also used for logical entailment
Yes in the contexts you gave.
No in this context: they’re referring to the ruling on the legal definition.
You think I’m defending the stupid ruling.
Where does it say that?
It’s a technical discussion of a legal definition. Defense/preference/endorsement is not implied.
if we’re going about precisely characterizing things
Pinning down legal definitions is what the legal system does. No one is claiming to personally defend it.
When does it not?
A definition identifies the meaning of the word being defined (the definiendum) with the meaning of the words doing the defining (the definiens). It declares their meanings identical, which implies equivalent, which implies symmetric.
The ruling makes law follow a precising definition, which imposes limitations on the conventional meaning to reduce vagueness.
Is there some reason this looks like a photocopy of a faxed photocopy? And no alt text or link to source: is OP just trying to break accessibility out of perverse joy? I wonder what they did to OP to deserve that.
And typically this is assumed to be in a superiority form of way as a default, because we associate it with the way we all collectively tend to talk about objects.
That assumption seems loaded: relative value is unstated.
The infected must maintain a safe distance or remain quarantined to prevent further infection.
is highly impersonal & could refer to any organism. However, it doesn’t inherently disrespect or dehumanize. It’s a factual & neutral statement (or implied instruction) that focuses on a specific quality.
Saying it directly to someone would be weird unless they’re announcing it to an entire room (depersonalizing). Still, it’s not suggesting anyone is lesser than human or necessarily disrespecting them. Common notices work the same way.
We don’t need people constantly reminding us we’re human to understand they’re not denying our humanity.
if the person is so socially naive that they genuinely don’t understand this and it’s a honest mistake
Or they disagree with your take. Others share your take, but it’s also a commonly rejected take. It’s not a logically necessary take.
If, however, you become informed of how this comes across
As if the informant has authority on the language for everyone?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That includes opinions that oppose unreasonable & unjust opinions.
Unless acting abusively, expressions that merely disagree don’t necessarily make someone an asshole. Deciding it does looks more like going on an expedition for assholes that aren’t there.
This distracts from the question, though, of whether such depersonalized language goes further & necessarily dehumanizes. I think there’s fair disagreement that it does.
Horseshoe theory
the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center
are both fascists
Are closer doesn’t mean are the same: horseshoe theory doesn’t support your claim.
They’re both authoritarians that repress human rights. They’re as bad as fascists. Identifying those elements that make them as bad—authoritarianism & repression of human rights—clarifies discussion.
When we articulate problems accurately, we can criticize them in all guises.
What did OP directly say or do in their post to direct a response to them rather than the image? All we have is their image in no particular context, an interpretation of the image, & a hypothetical statement I wrote?
When you refer to someone as a human (a specifically human term) is it paradoxically dehumanizing?
The human argues that clinical, generic terms nonspecific to humans dehumanize people.
Perhaps referring to a person by more generic, abstract terms indicates (bizarre) distance & detachment rather than anything inherently dehumanizing?
Those examples you cited signaled closeness or distance to me rather than humanity & respect. As in “I feel close to this animal, so I’ll address it in specific personal terms for addressing a person I may know”.
The insults, however, refer to a human as an animal they are not while drawing unfavorable comparisons. It doesn’t work with every animal, eg, fox, vixen, ox, lion, shark, starfish. Also varies by context & comparisons drawn.
Reading more into generic, abstract terms is an interpretation and some contexts may indicate that. However, claiming an inherently disrespectful or dehumanizing meaning is contentious: without context to support it, it seems more like an effort to seek grievance than to consider honest meaning.
randomly criticize someone else over a meme
Someone else or the meme? Are we getting worked up over generic you?
The observation that perceived disapproval for “fighting fascists” around here may more often be someone deluding themselves, so the image rings false with self-delusion is a critique of the meme.
Semantics is literal meaning, though. Words mean things.
I’m sure there are many words for left-wing authoritarians: fascist isn’t it. Instead of making fascism meaningless, can we pick a correct word? Maybe authoritarian?
With all the fascism denounced around here, they’re a rarity, and it’s perplexing to know what say to the far more common left-wing authoritarians who argue against democratic values because they’re not left enough.
No problem: sometimes we all need a reality check when we go tilting at windmills as is custom around here.
Self-satisfaction at stretching the definition of fascism.
If you’re getting downvoted here where anti-fascism thrives, and you think it’s for criticizing fascism, then there’s probably something else going on (and you’re probably being an idiot).
tankie troika
Gotta admit that is way better.
Tankie Triad
Are tankies the pro- or anti-fascist crowd? I thought they were far left whereas fascists far right. It’s hard to keep track of all these vying affiliations.
the coffee cup is talking
Yours don’t?
identified by the police as REDACTED
REDACTED is such a sturdy name. I wonder if it’s a new naming trend.
He also said bluesky’s shift toward a traditional corporate structure and the introduction of centralized moderation tools were major factors behind his leaving the company, and he vouched for alternatives like nostr.
It seems a bit more challenging to pull shit like this on nostr.
The good tidbits are there. The bad was always there. Even early christians thought so.
Before the religion organized into a hierarchical orthodoxy, communities distant from the emerging establishment (not particularly attached to jewish traditions) in places like Alexandria were left to their own devices to figure out christianity: they formed loose households & study circles to interpret texts in the context of their own traditions & culture, and they drew their own conclusions.
This interpretation became known as gnosticism.
Sticklers with the evil trash god of older jewish scriptures didn’t like this idea, became early church authorities, denounced it as heresy, & purged all the texts they could of it. Nonetheless, early christians thought there was bad in those texts & tried to handle it.
https://www.vox.com/policy/385549/trans-sports-transgender-biden-harris-democrats-titleix
What the Biden administration proposed on transgender athletes
In 2023, over strong objections of activists on the right and left, the Biden administration announced a proposed change to Title IX, the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally funded educational program. Their suggested change would prohibit outright bans on transgender athletes, but would permit schools to restrict transgender students from participating if they could demonstrate that inclusion would harm “educational objectives” like fair competition and the prevention of injury.
This more nuanced stance marked the first time the Biden administration took the position that sex differences can matter in school sports, something hotly disputed by leading LGBTQ rights organizations. The proposed rule also reflected research that suggests sex differences emerge over time, so the standard for inclusion in high school should not necessarily be the same as that in younger grades.
Contrary to the post-election grumblings from Biden allies in the Atlantic, the president has been virtually silent on his own administration’s proposal for the last 18 months. He’s never spoken about it, and it was never mentioned by any other Biden official, including in any White House briefing on transgender issues.
[⁝]
But there is some evidence that Republicans’ years of attacks have taken their toll on public opinion. Gallup found in 2023 that 69 percent of Americans believe transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that match their sex assigned at birth, an increase from the 62 percent who said the same in 2021.
Tellingly, Biden’s proposed policy on transgender athletes — allowing targeted restrictions for fairness and safety while rejecting blanket bans — would likely resonate more with average Americans than the hardline stances typically associated with Republicans, who leaned on transgender fearmongering in the midterms only to see their candidates flop, or Democrats, who many voters perceive as having no nuance on the topic at all. Yet the Biden administration’s reluctance to clearly communicate their middle-ground position left a vacuum that Republicans were happy to fill. It’s a dynamic that political observers say has become increasingly common: Democratic leaders stake out a position but, wary of internal rifts, default to strategic ambiguity even on issues where their stances might resonate with voters.
Interesting: nuance (do not restrict unless it would harm) was possible to beat Republicans on this policy. Internal rifts led them to stay silent on a stance (already being realized) that would resonate.
I’m surprised more animus isn’t directed toward him specifically. I suspect he’s the mastermind behind most of the worst policies coming out of this administration.
Vice News long ago ran a profile on him covering his hard-right radicalization starting from his reaction to his liberal high school in Santa Monica. Unfortunately, this video of that on facebook is all I can find.
This is the web: we can attribute source with link, and the original source in markdown could be quoted without breaking accessibility. The web is built for it.
Text: it’s accessible!