Using a word and encouraging its use isn't censorship. And if you think the people using different words are doing harm to them, while the people who consistently vote against assistance, and keep treating them like they're inhuman creatures are not, you have quite the cranium-rectum perspective there.
You're on a board with some of the only people trying to actually help the problem, why does it matter what they say?
It doesn't increase apathy, it's a new term after homeless on the euphemism treadmill. They aren't without a home, their home is the city we both live in, and they're my neighbor, and deserve care--thats the rationale that makes me prefer to say "unhoused" as a personal preference, though I don't care what word others use.
Term evolution in general isn't meant to fix the issue, it's either to change a word that was disrespectful in some cases, or to use person-first style language, which is meant to be more thoughtful in cases where personhood can be overlooked. It's why even "homeless person" sounds a lot better than "bum". I live in Seattle, and with a lot of unhoused people combined with the city being squarely in the radar of conservatives itching to criticize, I've seen a subreddit called "bums of Seattle", where people film and take pictures of them and post them freak-show style and talk shit about them. They see them as creatures, non-human, and deserving of a bad fate, especially if they're drug addicted. I used to live in southern border states, and the amount of people using the word "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants (or just brown people they don't know anything about), coupled with terms like "infested" or "invasion" shows that the language is absolutely a battle and heavily influences how we think of things, and showcases attitudes we already have.
It's not some silly white college liberal nonsense, it's recognizing that language is already being used as a weapon, and engaging in kind.
Not having a safety feature before developing or adding one isn't a booby trap. Taking away a safety feature in order to punish a criminal and could still possibly hurt an innocent person and with no sign posted is absolutely booby trapping something.
I love how when I refuse to agree with you, you think I'm "digging in my heels", yet you aren't while doing the same thing. I could wager a guess you probably try to say shit like this to your partner or family to win arguments, and you're just autopilot-ing with me.
Their latest bit of propaganda to soften their voters to the idea of Christian nationalism is to claim that the establishment clause doesn't include the words, verbatim, "separation of church and state", so now they're claiming it isn't an important constitutional thing and not something we need to honor in general.
It's asinine, because the concept in the establishment clause as well as some other founding father writings are where we get the term, and it's a good thing in general to separate those two things, since we've seen throughout history how many times it's gone wrong in different countries.
If you read my previous comments, a clearly marked sign takes care of that.
I'm not digging in my heels, you are. And we're not even on the joke anymore, we're on the topic of booby trapping something and the idea of "let's purposely make something dangerous to punish people". Sometimes people like to move on from a joke a go into a discussion about something adjacent to it, it doesn't mean they don't get the joke or are "digging in their heels". You're only saying this because you don't want to be wrong
Electric fences carry a warning, and barbed fences are an obvious danger. Traps are meant to endanger while seeming innocuous.
So to quote you, "nope".
Having a warning sign takes care of intent, and would make it not a trap. But purposely setting up some trap, or purposely being negligent hoping it will hurt someone is still a booby trap
Booby trapping centers around intent, and intentionally removing a safety feature because we're mad at thieves is booby trapping
Depends on your audience. Reddit tends to have a lot of bitter men weigh in on these topics
Context is key. Posing with it held up in a picture is probably going to be interpreted as WS, but flashing it while saying "ok" or something isn't.
Like everyone else said, it's the "save the women and children" thing. It used to be enough in the American populace to say something is "wrong" or a perversion and most people would get riled up into a moral panic that way, but these days most people just live and let live. They need to make it seem like the children are being brainwashed into surgeries, and that women are being perved on in bathrooms, because fear like that moves a lot of people.
It's also GOP propaganda playbook these days to take accusations on their side (Trump creeping on young women and buddying up with Epstein, Matt Gaetz and his dealings with minors), and start throwing the same type of accusations--completely baselessly, mind you--back at the other side until nobody knows what to believe anymore. It also has the added effect of diluting the terms or topics until they are overused and start to mean nothing. See also: "why are Dems so focused on race? That makes them the reeeeeeeal racists", various uses of the phrase "the reeeeeeeal insurrection" over something benign. Having grooming or child endangerment accusations thrown around back and forth makes them 1) not believe or care about what's going on on their side if they think they can point the finger back, and 2) believe without question that it's happening on the "bad" side.
It's been a nationwide thing, you probably just don't know how much slang you use that has come from it. Do you ever say "cool"? Or "man", as in "man, it's hot outside"? You've used AAVE. That's very old AAVE that's been in the mainstream for awhile, but I remember certain words when my sister was growing up in the early 90s and some later sets of slang when I was growing up a few years later, and now we see what people mistake as "Gen Z slang", which is just a whole other set of AAVE.
It's also just taking what Dems have said about Trump or other GOPers like Matt Gaetz who have been creeps at best towards young women and criminals most likely, and ramping it up to 11 and throwing it back at Dem politicians ("Joe's a kid sniffer" etc) as well as the constituents like the LGBTQ as you said, and just proceed to sling around baseless accusations until the word and the accusation becomes completely meaningless.
They do it with so many things too, I remember Ted Cruz talking about the SCOTUS leak forecasting a Roe v Wade overturn and calling it "the real insurrection". They also like to compare their traitorous act to BLM whenever convenient, because they think some broken windows and some looting from Target are even remotely the same as an attempted coup based on lies. This is fueled by their propaganda machine and is entirely on purpose. If they can make something meaningless, as well as pointing the finger back, then why should their voters come to their senses and hold them accountable?
Because AAVE is almost entirely spoken by black people, and generations of young white kids, or kids in general adopted a subset of words from it for a really long time now
Good job Sherlock! I read the same articles. Still doesn't excuse you from saying I just repeated rumors with zero links, when you could've looked into it yourself
Well I'm a great example of why we need to change it. I'm a girl who never liked pink or feminine things, and my mom giving me a hard time about it until I relented didn't change my actual preferences, it just makes a kid insecure. It's not bad for a parent to shop for things or lean toward certain colors, but their kid should be allowed to like what they like at the same time.
The only difference that affects anything outside of body parts and hormones are physical-based activity. Even then, a lot of activities and jobs one might claim that men are more suited for, women are perfectly capable of based on the demands of the job itself. Anything beyond that is western colonial belief or something of the sort
I was gonna ask where Joan Cusack was
I know what I read, and I don't repeat rumors. As far as the motive being false flag, I can't find evidence but I don't go around claiming shit I didn't actually see concrete evidence of. Here you go:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/climate/climate-protesters-paid-activists.html
Is there a council among them that decides that? They must be very organized, and good for them
Calling people "unhoused" instead of "homeless" is doing a disservice to those people
unpopularopinion