Fork me on GitHub

@eyelidlessness - here, somehow I'm only a day late P ; > all words are made up. exactly all of them. that's what words are. zero of them came from on high. That is a fair point, but to me a word that has had existed for centuries, whose linguistic origin you can probably trace across a few languages bears more weight than the one someone made up just now to describe baiting cheap clicks by having females shake their posteriors in a suggestive manner. But then again, that's just me. > the words you used to suggest otherwise are all words in common usage, which is why they were added to the dictionaries you mentioned, so i have no idea what that was meant to prove. I never claimed they are not in common usage, neither did I bring dictionaries up first - my point was that a word is not somehow inherently better just by the virtue of being included in a dictionary. It does not elevate a word into some kind of lexical godhood, so that it is beyond all reproach. As you say, the dictionaries are just a fairly matter-of-factly record of the vocabulary people use, and I just challenge the words people use themselves. I conceded before that this is more indicative of my thoughts on the topic, than any quality inherent to the word. Also, I don't think male-on-male sexual harassment necessarily implies homosexuality - I can just as well imagine it as a device to denigrate someone into subservience without either party deriving any pleasure of contact with same sex in the process. So no, I don't think existence (or not) of homosexuality is a necessary corollary to the existence (or not) of male-on-male sexual harassment. Those things are in my opinion orthogonal, though I probably can agree that existence of homosexuality might correlate with higher rate of occurrence of male-on-male sexual harassment and/or assault. > that's a normative claim about heterosexuality. that's what heteronormative means. As you were keen to point out, words mean what the general populace think they mean and I've seen "heteronormative" being used as "whatever heterosexual people do that I don't like" more often than as "assumption that there are only two genders, homonymous to sexes". And as such I just stopped treating this word as having any serious meaning, since it became an emotionally loaded phrase. And yes, that's anecdotal evidence and you can feel free to disagree, but to me the way the people on the Internet use those words cheapens them to "you do not agree with me and therefore you are bad" or - as Orwell eloquently put it - "badthink". Now again, I can concede this is a failing of mine that I have an allergic reaction to those words, even if they are used in their intended meanings, but that's just a bias I have from personal experience of the Internet. Also I think you misrepresent crocket's stance somewhat in that he (I assume) never suggested that male-on-male sexual harassment does not happen, just that on the Internet it's relatively rare compared to generic trolling and that's what the CoC should be tailored towards. It's in no way a normative statement about sexuality (hetero-, homo- or otherwise), it's just an assumption about profile of harassment on the Internet arising from his anecdotal experience that could probably be proved or refuted as a justified generalisation by some statistics.


Debian was my favorite distribution back in the day.