No, logic does that: showing everyone else you’re wrong is just icing.

You have yet to show that it isn’t derogatory, so far you just have your own oppinion.

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

that is derogatory

and questionable speculation (not observational evidence) that doesn’t support it.

It is often used to dehumanize women, as the term is mostly used when talking about animals.

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.

1. If a term is mostly used to talk about animals, then it’s dehumanizing.
2. Noun female is mostly used to talk about animals.

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.

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.

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:

“What if I would have been armed,” she said. “You’re breaking in. What am I supposed to think? My initial thought was we were being robbed—that my daughters, being females, were being kidnapped. You have guns pointed in our faces. Can you just reprogram yourself and see us as humans, as women? A little bit of mercy. […]"

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?

Confirmed: couldn’t even search females in lemmy. Disregards common classified ads. Claims “bad faith” while ignoring evidence in bad faith.

Why would I?

Because the claim is empirical, and yours violates plain observation?

So you didn’t look at the

abundant evidence here (search females), in classifieds, personals & online equivalents (eg, ads that limit eligibility to females), or text corpus searches revealing that the noun female referring to humans is often non-derogatory

did you?

In posts like this and elsewhere, commenters kept claiming the noun female to refer to a human is generally derogatory or offensive.

Someone wrote

Occasionally my partner does or says some things that remind me of the “manosphere” aka 4chan neckbeards.

A perfect example was that he sometimes says “females” when he means “women”. I explain that it’s not a swear word but it’s still derogatory. I explain why. Once I did, he understood and stopped doing it.

Despite abundant evidence here (search females), in classifieds, personals & online equivalents (eg, ads that limit eligibility to females), or text corpus searches revealing that the noun female referring to humans is often non-derogatory, so it all depends on the context, they’d insist that usage of the word itself is offensive, insulting, or disrespectful, and they wanted everyone taught to think that until it’s the generally accepted meaning. They didn’t seem to consider that promoting unconventionally sexist framings (ie, female is a dirty word) for wider adoption in our language serves sexists more than anything, and it might make more sense to resist that.

Which is why I think it was all on purpose.

Occam/Hanlon’s razor: it’s stupidity with opportunistic grift.

Project 2025 had pro- & anti-tariff proposals (they were split on the issue of fair vs free trade & argued both). This administration is running wild with the pro-tariff proposal, which ties tariff imbalances to trade deficits (seen this theme before?).

While the fair trade camp argued higher tariffs would somehow create jobs, the free trade camp called for realism & skepticism

trade policy has limited capabilities and is vulnerable to mission creep and regulatory capture

will fail for the same reason that a hammer cannot turn a screw: It is the wrong tool for the job. Conservatives should be similarly skeptical of recent attempts on the Right to use progressive trade policy to punish political opponents, remake manufacturing, or accomplish other objectives for which it is not suited. The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.

countered that no trade policy (fair or free) creates jobs

Neither free trade nor protectionism will create jobs. Trade affects the types of jobs people have, but it has no long-run effect on the number of jobs. Labor force size is tied to population size more than anything else.

and argues more inline with textbook economics about trade, comparative advantage, specialization.

Interestingly, the free trade camp gave a brief history lesson about the interconnectedness of the economy from its agrarian beginnings

In 1776, nearly 90 percent of Americans were farmers. For 10 people to eat, nine had to farm. That meant fewer people could be factory workers, doctors, or teachers, or even live in cities, because they were needed on the farm. Accordingly, life expectancy was around 40 years, and literacy was 13 percent.

through the loss of jobs from agriculture to industry increasing the output of both

Many displaced farm laborers got jobs making the very farm equipment that made intensive agricultural growth possible, from railroad networks to cotton gins. Each fed the other. Agriculture and industry are not separate; they are as interconnected as everything else in the economy. None of this could have happened had the government enacted policies to preserve full agricultural employment.

to argue that jobs in a particular sector are the wrong measure of value

economic policy should treat value as value, whether it is created on a farm, in a factory, or in an office. A dollar of value created in manufacturing is neither more nor less valuable than a dollar of value created in agriculture or services.

growth increased as service sector surpassed manufacturing

Farmers’ share of the population continued to decline through this entire period, yet employment remained high, and the economy continued to grow. Factories were not the only beneficiaries of agriculture’s productivity boom and the labor it freed; services also grew. In fact, service-sector employment surpassed manufacturing employment around 1890—far earlier than most people realize.

economic decline based on manufacturing is a myth that disregards the big picture

In trade, as in most other areas, few people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline.

trade leads to specialization that affects the types of jobs, not long-term employment level

The data do not show American economic carnage. They show more than two centuries of intensive growth, made possible by a growing internal market throughout the 19th century and a growing international market in the post–World War II era. The transition from farm to factory did not shrink the labor force or farm output. Later, the transition from factories to services did not shrink the labor force, factory output, or farm output. Both transitions affected the types of jobs, not the number of jobs.

declining tariffs in the post-war era made this continued prosperity possible

population growth, the U.S.-led rules-based international trading system, and the steady 75-year decline in tariffs after World War II have made possible decades of continued prosperity

That position was too nuanced for this administration.

image of text to pointlessly break accessibility
no real text

actual text would be better

screenshot of text
no link or alt text

Dude, charge your battery.

you can get banned here

It takes special effort here, though.

And like it was always going to be like that anyways.

It’s not inevitable: some places are very laissez-faire.

Link to source, because screenshots of screenshots are inaccessible trash.

former director of the American Institute of Physics

arXiv, which physicists setup nearly as far back as the web, would have a word with this guy. The web was invented at CERN practically so physicists could share research documents.

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.

👊 TARIFF 🔥

The GREATEST, most TREMENDOUS Python package that makes importing great again!

About

TARIFF is a fantastic tool that lets you impose import tariffs on Python packages. We’re going to bring manufacturing BACK to your codebase by making foreign imports more EXPENSIVE!

Installation

pip install tariff

Usage

import tariff

# Set your tariff rates (package_name: percentage)
tariff.set({
    "numpy": 50,     # 50% tariff on numpy
    "pandas": 200,   # 200% tariff on pandas
    "requests": 150  # 150% tariff on requests
})

# Now when you import these packages, they'll be TARIFFED!
import numpy   # This will be 50% slower
import pandas  # This will be 200% slower

Text: it’s accessible!

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?

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).