142
this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
142 points (94.4% liked)
Ask Lemmy
31537 readers
1213 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Confirmed: couldn't even search females in lemmy. Disregards common classified ads. Claims "bad faith" while ignoring evidence in bad faith.
Because the claim is empirical, and yours violates plain observation?
Searching random websites is anecdotal, not actual statistics
Statistics aren't needed to reject an overgeneralization. On the contrary, you would need something like statistical generalization: you're (over)generalizing the meaning of a word. Any counterexamples suffice to defeat a bad generalization, since no sample should contradict a true generalization: look it up or take introductory logic.
You're overgeneralizing, and only asserting your claim doesn't begin to meet the burden to support that. In contrast, I've indicated evidence exists & where it's readily found, which you ignore. Ignoring evidence that doesn't suit you is a fallacy (often committed in bad faith).
The fact remains that counterexamples to your claim are common, which wouldn't be expected if the conventional meaning were derogatory.
Here's an example quoting a story in the news:
So your claim is that by referring to her daughters as females, this mother is insulting them?
While I might be able to argue in "bad faith", the unsolicited speech productions of the community do not. Do you want to ignore more examples?
I see no link to a study or anything, so nothing new
Counterexamples don't require studies: learn logic.
Refuting the claim "men are generally bald" merely requires the existence of a few men who aren't. You're claiming "female is a derogatory noun to humans": as shown it isn't. Can you explain what the mother quoted in the news is saying about her daughters if your claim about female is true? No, your claim fails.
Deny plain observation all you want: your claim is false.
You have yet to show that it isn't derogatory, so far you just have your own oppinion.
Thus you are wrong.
Now I do see that you are registered at lemmynsfw.com, generally I would not hold your instance against you if you make a resonable argument in good faith, but based on your creepy attitude and fixation with derogatory/demeaning terms combined with your instance of choice tells me that this is a kink, which is fine if done with consent, but you are pushing your kink on others outside of spaces where it is accepted.
Examples have been given, so it's not opinion: it's plain observation which you're denying.
Where's your evidence? You've only given an overgeneralization
and questionable speculation (not observational evidence) that doesn't support it.
Even if a term often dehumanizes, does it follow that the term itself is derogatory (especially if common uses often don't dehumanize)?
The speculation poses generalizations on observable phenomena.
Some problems with that: where's your observational, generalizable support for any of it? (Empirical generalizations need that type of support.) Is 2 even true & how would you show that?
Does your overgeneralization withstand observation? No: if it did, then the example given & other refuting instances wouldn't be easy to find.
What is an empirical claim that fails to account for observable reality? Worthless.
Outright denying observations that conflict with your claim/pretending they don't exist is part confirmation bias & part selective evidence fallacy. Try respecting logic & choosing tenable claims that can withstand basic observation.
FYI Linguistics and much of science rely on methods other than statistics. Classical & relativistic physics were developed without it. Planetary observations rejecting geocentrism didn't involve statistics. Much of linguistics is detailed observation & analysis of language samples to identify patterns and rules, so good luck finding statistical studies to support your claims.
lol, just because you post a long comment with links to Wikipedia, doesn't mean that you are right.
No, logic does that: showing everyone else you're wrong is just icing.
lol.
You have done nothing of the sort.
You're entitled to be wrong & deny reality. Everyone is entitled dismiss your position.
Well, your argument at the moment seems to be purely based on your opinion on on the fact that someone people do use the term in a derogatory sense, but this absolutely doesn't translate to "it is generally used" as such.
The argument of the other person seems to be grounded on the empirically easily verifiable point that you can find plenty of non derogatory uses of the word in mainstream media, which is a solid argument against the word being "generally used" in a derogatory way.
In fact, I believe your argument really is "incels and others in the manosphere use this word as a derogatory term, and using this word can associate the user with them, hence I don't use it and I don't recommend to use it". Which is a perfectly fine position, which I personally disagree with, but that doesn't rely on a distortion of reality and is a consequence of a personal political choice (that I respect fully).