Raider5678

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I'm fairly sure that has always been there.

Ah, I never noticed it until a days ago that even inside of posts and quotes, hoving over someone's name shows it.

On 1/6/2019 at 5:32 AM, studiot said:

And is anyone going to tell us about the changes to the site.

1

I noticed if you hover your mouse over someones name, then it'll show a pop up about them.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

They don't want a mistake to label them, but what's really important here is that the language needs to stop being needlessly offensive.

I'd argue the exact opposite of what you said.

I don't want the language to be needlessly offensive, but what's really important here is that a single mistake doesn't label you. 

Take, for example, a girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend and says "All men are just assholes." (I've heard it. Many, many, many, many times.)

The language is needlessly offensive. She could have said his name instead. But no, she says "men". That's sexist, is it not?

Or perhaps we use another phrase, more related to this thread.

A woman, after her husband forgets to put the big spoons separately from the small spoons, says exasperatedly, "Stupid man.", takes the spoon, and does it for him.

I mean, according to you(I think it was you who said that), there is no reason to include gender in that phrase unless it's used in a sexist way to demean that gender. 

Should we label that woman as sexist, in the name of reducing needlessly offensive language?

I could go on. But I think my point is clear. I really believe that allowing a mistake to label someone is far worse than there being needlessly offensive language.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

The speaker (and some of the members of the audience) just thinks he is "being nice". He needs to understand that, even though he may not have intended it that way, what he said is sexist, demeaning and offensive.

And if it's sexist, as it obviously is, and the speaker made a mistake when saying that, should we label him as sexist? (This is assuming you agree with Phi's statement. If not, ignore this.)

Just now, zapatos said:

Who made him out to be a disgrace to humanity? Or is this another example of the "misrepresentation" of the facts I was speaking about?

What was the first example of the "misrepresentation" of the facts you were speaking about?

And nobody on this forum said it. However, there are plenty of people talking about it outside of this forum. And a lot of those people are.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What we are doing here, and in all similar conversations about this matter in forums or in the press, is teaching people that this type of language is inappropriate.

Teaching someone that it's inappropriate is taking them aside and saying, "Look. You don't say that. It's wrong, it's hurtful, and it's sexist. Don't say it."

Not calling for their resignation from their career, calling you a sexist bigot on social media and the news, make you out to be a disgrace to humanity, and acting like you're one of the sexist bigots who actually do exist. 

Just now, Strange said:

That thing that flew over your head just now? That was the point. I think you missed it.

I apologize then, I thought you were still discussing in relation to the comic.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think it is intimately related. The problem with "stupid woman" (if there is one, he adds, hedging his bets!) is just one example of the way gendered language is used more generally.

If he said "stupid women" it'd be general. Woman is singular, meaning it was directed at her. Not women in general.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

That said, we can (should be able to?) walk and chew bubble gum at the same time and addressing these individual issues is in no way mutually exclusive.

We can, but it's so much more fun to just chew bubble gum instead of walking as well.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, as he was talking only to himself, the use of "woman" can't have been necessary to disambiguate who he was talking about so it must have been intended, as hypervalent says, to emphasise the insult.

I thought he was whispering to an aid?

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

Maybe Dan won a sprint at  3km

Dan won the 10 kilometer race by winning a 3 kilometer sprint?

Doesn't follow. I think he left something out.

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

No he definitely won. At least 4 of them ran very very fast.

So for a 10 kilometer race, Dan ran 3 kilometers, stopped, and won?

6 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Dan wins after running 3 kilometers.

Wouldn't he be the loser if he only ran 3 kilometers?

On 10/4/2018 at 12:25 PM, Moontanman said:

An adult african bull elephant would be hard to deal with using an ar-15 especially if he knew you were there, it's said an african elephant can sneak up on any human and use you like a whisk broom. From a distance a human with a high powered rifle is hard to beat but even the odds a little and the human is dog food... Tigers regularly hunt humans as food in some areas, if a tiger was hunting you i doubt any weapon would make much of a difference when he ambushes you. crocodiles eat people with some regularity as well, many animals can ambush a human armed with an nuclear device and the human is food unless he has a dead man's switch... In which case he is still dead.. A kodiak bear would be a tough kill if it ambused you as well... 

Specifically, the question said predator.

A human being actively hunting an African elephant is probably going to win. Even a human hunting a tiger could probably beat it if he had a gun. Crocodiles eat people, but that doesn't mean hundreds more of them are killed by humans every year. And if a human is hunting with a nuclear device, then it's not the question of a "human with a gun". A kodiak bear is also no match for a human hunting it.

Obviously, if you just drop a human into a flat open plain with these animals, the animals will probably win. But it's not the question. The question is during a hunt. A hunt where humans are vastly smarter then the prey. A human could think that the African elephant will charge him when he open's fire, and simply hide somewhere before opening fire. Somewhere the African elephant won't be able to charge him easily. A tiger can ambush a human, but then the human simply keeps on the high ground and waits to ambush the tiger instead. When your killing range is over a four hundred times that of the tiger, it's easy to set up an ambush that covers a huge area, instead of the one little area the Tiger could do. Crocodiles too, are actively hunted by humans with guns. The humans almost always win. And even a Kodiak bear would face the same problems as the tiger. 

45 minutes ago, Phantom5 said:

And when you take a net and hangs it in the reactor block, then you can fill the net with perlite and has a big heatsink.

 

I have tested it with a cooking pot and it works. The water dont cooks. You have the evaporation cold.

And the radioactive particles filter the perlite and how i wrote, its a big heat sink.

But the secondary set of photosynthesis doesn't work.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But that isn’t what’s happening. You aren’t “draining” the field.

Ah, okay.

Looking at it now,  I see that the ball always accelerates at the same spot: Right where he pushed it.

Initially, he gave it enough of a push to make the ball go around in a circle, and he just keeps looping that.

29 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

If you could do that with no energy input then it should be possible to extract energy from the system. Hence perpetual motion.. 

The energy input is the magnetic potential energy.

Magnets won't remain magnetic forever. Every time the ball goes around, they lose some of their magnetic potential energy(It might be called something completely different.).  Eventually the field will become weaker and it'll stop.

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 Yes magnets but magnets shouldn't be able to make that ball not only self start but speed up with no external energy input. 

When he puts the ball down, it appears he pushes it.

So that's how it seemingly started.

As for speeding up, I figured it had to do with it passing through magnetic fields. 

Magnets, unless I completely misunderstood what those black rings are.

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Actually I haven't. Culturally here in the U.S. among the people I have been around throughout my life "stupid man" isn't something I recall. I have heard a**hole and d*ck countless times. Those two slurs are pretty much always gender specific towards men. However neither challenges a man's intelligence. Both those slurs primarily criticize aggressive and pushy behavior. Gender specific  criticisms of men don't typically challenge intelligence. There are even gender specific ones that concede intelligence while criticizing other behavior like Wise Guy and Smart Aleck. 

That said different slang in prominent in different areas and we (you and I) live in different countries. So our experience will be different.

I can confirm I've heard it quite a bit from my area.

But like you said, I can virtually assure you the cultures we've grown up in are very very different.

5 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Stupid boy, as with stupid girl, is more in reference to age. Again, it is used to underscore the original insult. Which once again brings us back to stupid woman, and the contextual implications of it being gendered. I am not familiar with the use of stupid man as an insult at all, at least where I live. 

I haven't heard stupid boy/stupid girl so much as "stupid child"/"Stupid teenagers" in regards to age.

However like I told Ten Oz, I have heard "Stupid Man" said quite a few times. And, as MILG mentioned, the occasional shout in a restaurant, a toss of a glass of water, and the word "MEN!" ringing throughout as a woman leaves. Albeit he didn't include context.

50 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Stubborn isn't synonymous with stupid.

However it's a generalization of a gender, and something that isn't universal. So, according to your definitions it would be sexist either way, which I think was the implication.

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Then again you reference "tv commercials" and as I have mentioned many times in other threads I do not have cable. I watch Netflix and Amazon Prime. I don't see tv commercials so I have no frame of reference for what you're taking about. Your media consumption and thus the type of language you are exposed to is different than mine. 

I watch a lot of you tube, and there are a lot of advertisements like what he described.

52 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I have honestly never heard any of those. Most famous Chefs I can think of are men. Anthony Bourdain,, Wolfgang Puck, Jose Andres, and etc comes to mind. As for the laundry and unless without their spouse stuff I suspect those are sayings from another generation and are no longer broadly used. People waiting off longer to marry and spend more time independent as young adults have changed the structure of marriage. At least it has for the people I know. 

I've heard most of them.

In fact, I've even heard the phrase "You'd think that after living by himself for three years he'd be able to make a pot of spaghetti!"

Next question.

If in one area, the phrases "Stupid man" and "Stupid woman" are used all the time, are they both sexist?

I mean, sexist is the treating or speaking of someone differently simply because of their gender, not so much how you treat them in regards to equally.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

John was referencing the 5th side, the one where they’re lying and claiming he didn’t say it at all. 

Specifically, I believe they are saying he said "Stupid people" instead

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

What "stupid woman" comment?

It's referencing the OP. Allegedly, Jeremy Corbin said "Stupid woman" under his breath while whispering to an aid during the prime minister question time, after the prime minister didn't answer his questions adequately.

The discussion is essentially split between 4 sides:

Saying "Stupid Woman" could likely simply have been an identifier, it shouldn't matter.

Saying "Stupid Woman" could likely have been a sexual comment, it does matter.

Saying "Stupid Woman" could have been either, it depends on what he meant and since we don't know that, we should withhold judgment.

Saying "Stupid Woman" could have been either, but since it can be interpreted as being a sexual comment, we shouldn't have to withhold judgement.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please stop looking for a fight. I couldn’t care less about this exchange.

Quite frankly, I'm not looking for a fight. I'm trying to have a discussion, which would be going a lot better if you'd stop making comments about my ability to comprehend things.

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

It was an attack. Gender was used as a weapon.

So using the except same set up, theoretically that means if I ask the same questions as you're asking me I'll get a response:

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

What leads you to this conclusion? As others have noted, it’s clearly open to interpretation. Why do you think the rest of us should accept yours as valid?

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

What leads you to this conclusion? As others have noted, it’s clearly open to interpretation. Why do you think the rest of us should accept yours as valid?

I was lead to that conclusion because it's possible he didn't mean to use gender as a weapon. I don't think the rest of you should just accept mine as valid.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, hence my use of the phrase “no hesitation.”

#comprehensionstrikesagain

Okay.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope 

Alright.

It was an attack. Gender was not used as a weapon though.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

I can’t assert anything with 100% certainty, even my own existence. Not the strongest argument, if I’m honest. 

Except you asserted this as an absolute did you not?

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

It was an attack. Gender was used as a weapon.