Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Cup in the canteen
The coffee is very bad
I swallow and retch

[MCreeper]

Woke up at 4 AM. Went to bed at 6 AM next day, somehow not particularly sleepy. Woke up at 10 PM. My sleeping schedule is so very fucked. And has been for a long time.

[TD1]

Cup in the canteen
The coffee is very bad
I swallow and retch

I see ChairmanPoo
Has honed his skills on practice
Of kitchen haiku.

[bloop_bleep]

Woke up at 4 AM. Went to bed at 6 AM next day, somehow not particularly sleepy. Woke up at 10 PM. My sleeping schedule is so very fucked. And has been for a long time.

Have you been bitten by any radioactive owls lately?

EDIT: I dreamed that cherries grew in weird pea pod-like holders the size of corn cobs. And that they could walk. To find the right soil to plant themselves in. And I knew this because of course, I, was a cherry farmer.

[King Zultan]

I was under the impression that that was how cherries actually grew.

[dragdeler]

The day I see that I just greet that.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Weird japanese folklore demons that adhere to politness etiquette ain't got nothing on me!

[King Zultan]

I was driving around the local lake and I found where someone had illegally dumped some crap, usually when you find something like that it's all garbage or old construction rubble but this time it was weird because it was someone's garage sale leftovers and when I say that I mean a stuff like, some clothing, two bicycles, a bed frame, mini fridge, TV, battery powered wheelchair and a car carry for it, some kids riding toys, and some other random stuff. Right before it was reported to the authorities we dug through it and grabbed some of the more useful stuff like a bunch of brand new craft stuff, a few planks of wood, kitchen upper cabinet, a big dog kennel, and a few other random things.

[Eric Blank]

It happens a lot anywhere there's a charge on dumping at a proper site. People would rather toss it on the side of the road than pay a fine, even if getting caught occasionally might incur a greater fine. Didn't see that much where we used to live; the public dumpsters were free, pre-paid by taxes. Just off limits to businesses/commercial dumping.

We're paying $15 a load now we moved to Washington, which is excessive, definitely.

Just goes to show that if you make people pay out of pocket for every basic service they will go out of their way just to spite you and avoid paying for that service.

[King Zultan]

I still find it weird that a lot of the stuff they dumped was new, they could have at least donated it to a thrift store or something rather than come all the way out to where I live to dump it.

[Mathel]

Went to fix a shower.

I unplug the shower, blow through it. No problem there.

I try the water with the shower unplugged. A component that was poking out of the connector shoots out and the water flows.

I check the component. It is a minimum pressure regulator. Unless there is at least a minimal pressure applied to it's back, it will remain closed.

It was installed backwards.

[McTraveller]

Guidelines saying "humankind" and "human beings" are less "unnecessarily gendered and exclusionary" than "mankind".  I guess just because it doesn't start with the 'man' root, it's OK?

Doesn't seem consistent.

Also, one of my not even unconscious biases is I have problems with people looking for ways to claim things are exclusionary.

I find the discussion about "inclusive language" is also very US culture and English-language specific...

[Vector]

I think because the word "man" has other connotations than "generic word for person" these days and we lack another generic word for the singular male of our species. For example, "woman" is not considered to mean "male" by most people who aren't second-wave feminists (the ones who write womxn). So if "woman" doesn't actually mean "man" then "human" doesn't either.

Can you clarify other languages that don't discuss problems of linguistic inclusivity? Most Romance languages are in the process of developing a third person neutral so that they no longer have to, by grammatical requirement, call a group of 50 women and 1 man the equivalent of "a group of men." (Or, if you're really a dick, you refer to a girl and her mother pregnant with a male fetus as "boys/guys," as seen in the Guillermo del Toro movie, Pan's Labyrinth).

For example, in French we now have il (he), elle (she) and iel (they). Whoo! New language despite the Academy controlling linguistic reforms.

[TD1]

The main issue is whether they are exclusionary. It starts with a fairly rational proposition - that 'man' is associated with men, and therefore could be construed as exclusionary. Not everyone is a man, after all.

But when challenged ('Oh! So 'mankind' is exclusionary? How??') the defense ('because we're saying 'man' is exclusionary!') is circular.

You'd need a much better data set to confirm your hypothesis, but you won't get it if you just accept your conclusion as Biblical.



Also, the historian in me wants to note that 'mankind' derives from Old English, which considered it a gender-neutral term. And that is how it's been used and considered up until very recent times.

[TamerVirus]

Just call everyone 'slick'. Problem solved

[Il Palazzo]

Man should be wer, woman should be wif. As the ancients decreed. If only so that we could have the Amazing Adventures of Werespider and Werebat Begins. Also Wonder Wife, I guess.