It's interesting to see comments like this that sound like they were written by someone who recently went through a social justice course at university.
Of course, I understand the impetus to piggyback a grievance on phrases like "white supremacist", which used to mean something. But these days their non-ironic use really tells us something about the person using it.
I mean, it should tell you that not everyone here is irony-poisoned and redpilled and only ever using this language in bad faith.
Not that it matters, because of course to treat "woke" subjects with any seriousness is thoughtcrime on HN, and good faith only guarantees bad faith in kind. I get that. And I also don't care.
Correct, and companies only ever pretended to care about measures of diversity that didn't hurt their bottom line too much.
How about software diversity, where one doesn't have to use either iOS or Android to function in the modern world? Or have to use Chrome OS at school, etc. We have no real freedom there unless we want to face significant difficulties.
This is a pattern we see again and again. The true believers are fools because they don't anticipate how the implementation of their doctrine will be gamed.
Trump may not have deserved to win, but the Democrats deserved to lose - and I'm relieved they did.
Maybe after this rematch the blue team will finally understand the loss was their fault, so they can start moving away from the abominable ideology and spiteful elitism that handed them this result.
This is complete nonsense. Israel isn't pursuing genocide. They've killed less than 100,000 Palestinians out of several million. That's obvious restraint compared to what they could do if they really wanted to.
You may not like Israel but the word 'genocide' is being abused here, and this whole ICJ ruling is theater.
It's not about "failing". Boeing lobbied for special treatment to save some cash instead of fixing a safety issue. For that, the death penalty is appropriate.
They're not wrong that it is rooted in misogyny, considering that you don't really use 'whore' or 'ho' with positive connotations. Not to mention that terms like thot are more likely to be found in incel communities these days, which is hardly a glowing endorsement of the term being used with good intentions.
As someone else said, at least 'thirst trap' doesn't lay it squarely at the feet of women, as if men aren't capable of doing the same.
I would ask, why shouldn't it be laid squarely at the feet of these women? This is something that a particular type of woman does to vulnerable men.
These men ought to have our sympathy rather than being labelled as "incels", a term which so easily lets us avoid viewing them as victims. Similarly, these women ought to be held responsible for their actions.
People seem to be more concerned with the perceived misogyny of, at worst, a mildly offensive word than the systematic exploitation of vulnerable members of society.
"A woman considered to be sexually provocative or promiscuous; a slut or whore" (Dictionary.com)
"A girl who is looked at as a hoe or slut." (Urban Dictionary)
"A slut, a woman who is sexually promiscuous." (Wiktionary)
"A promiscuous woman" (Collins)
Nowhere does it say a thot "attracts and extracts money from lonely boys". The behavior of a "thot" is not immoral, she is simply sexually active / promiscuous. Using this term in a derogatory manner is misogynistic, just like "slut". Downvote me all you want.
Yes, the punishment should be immense. But we all know there's no real justice to be had here.
In places like China, there's personal accountability at the highest level of an org for major screw ups - sometimes even capital punishment.
If we put such options on the table here, perhaps corporations would be a little less callous with people's private data, and a little less eager to collect it.
Of course, I understand the impetus to piggyback a grievance on phrases like "white supremacist", which used to mean something. But these days their non-ironic use really tells us something about the person using it.