For me it’s saying, “we can’t joke about anything anymore”. Sirens go off immediately 🚨
“Female” instead of woman or girl.
Edit: as in, where “woman” or “girl” would be grammatically correct. e.g. “a lot of females work at that company” vs “a lot of women work at that company” or “that company has a lot of female employees”
Female is a great adjective but an inappropriate noun.
I hope that you can extend some grace to people born in different eras. When I hear something like “woman employee,” I hear my Greatest Generation grandparents, and believe me, neither “woman doctor” or “woman driver,” nor any similar construction was complimentary.
I think it was the Boomers who started to use “female” as an adjective, because it sounded clinical, descriptive, and non-judgemental. So “female employee” sounds much better to my ear. (But, FWIW, the use of “female” as a noun is total cringe.)
Yeah, inceldom has coopted the word, and now I hear that “woman doctor” is preferred, but it’s not always easy to remember that on the fly when you grew up with the opposite connotation.
Yeah, inceldom has coopted the word
Only if we let them, and anyone who does is an incompetent advocate choosing to let sexists decide the meaning of words for everyone else when everyone else has at least as much power to do otherwise. It’s complacent cooperation with the enemy that purports ethical superiority while being the opposite.
Older activists who understood the pitfalls of establishing their own stigmatization in the language at least had the sense not to cooperate with their enemies. They’d more creatively reappropriate or reclaim words or embrace them as terms of pride. That lesson seems lost here.
Words that used unironically/outside of satire, automatically signal you as a chud:
-
Libtard
-
Foid
-
Carnist
-
Lookmaxxing
-
Mog/Mogging
-
Any kind of slur
-
Woke (at least, the word is generally only brought up now by chuds complaining about things being woke)
-
DEI in a negative manner
Carnist
what the fuck is carist or foid?
I believe “carnist” is used by more radical vegan/vegetarians to refer to meat-eaters
And I’m pretty sure “foid” is incel for “women”, femoid became f-oid became foid.
I’ve read “blood mouth” to refer to meat eaters, which I thought sounded like loser talk.
Edit: I think most people have this interaction. Every vegan I’ve met out in the world has been a cool relaxed person, a bunch of vegans online are loud mouthy fuckwits.
Thats probably because the vegans you’ve met in the world go outside lol
Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use “carnist” pretty regularly. “Carnist” either means supporting carnism (“carnist rhetoric”) or someone who subscribes to it (“a carnist”), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):
The human ideology that supports the slaughter of certain animals and the consumption of their meat or other products (leather from skin, etc).
By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an “omnivore” or “omni”. This will vary by person, but “carnist” will be used over “omnivore” when the person isn’t just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.
It’s a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it’s stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a “carnist”, and has been big mad ever since.
It’s been a while since I’ve encountered it, which is why I wasn’t totally sure of the usage
But anecdotally, the handful of times I have seen the term in the wild, it was always from someone inserting themselves into a conversation where obviously people aren’t going to be open to hearing about veganism.
Like if they hopped into a thread about, for example, a BBQ or hunting forum, and started berating people for eating meat, and when they get told to pound sand, they go off about how that’s “typical carnist behavior” or something.
Which I think you can probably agree is pretty CHUD-y
Not saying that’s how it’s used in regular vegan circles, but that’s how I’ve personally seen used it as a non-vegan
I also find “carnist” to be sort of a try-hard word in regular use, but the other part that SHOULD be said is that choosing to use it is useful for perspective switching. Typically being vegan or vegetarian is a minority position so the language in general basically normalizes omni eating habits. “Carnist” as a turn of phrase makes it possible to shift “normal” to more closely match veganism.
Edit: You basically said this deeper in the thread, oops. Still I’ll leave it because maybe more people will see it.
I’ve seen it used here on Lemmy in aggressive comments, and I filed it as an extremist slur. It’s not just Kolanaki.
Same here. I’ve never seen it in the real world.
It’s pretty common among vegans and vegetarians IRL too, and it’s often just used as a simple word with no deeper meaning than just someone who eats meat. Like “hey, X is coming to dinner next week, they’re a carnist though so we gotta make something that they’d like”.
I’ve never heard it as a vegan with a couple vegan friends, only by some very angry people on lemmy. I just say he’s is/is not vegetarian and that’s descriptive enough.
I think it is probably because it gets used in a way where it takes on a slur-like connotation. It feels a bit complicated to this onlooker; vegan and non-vegan would seem like adequate terms at first glance, but because “vegan” is overloaded (it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same) it feels a bit lacking.
it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same
Actually, in circles where “carnist” would be used, “vegan” has a very clear distinction, and it’s the latter. Whether they’ve seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society’s definition*:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms [which we don’t use] it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Somebody who’s solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: “plant-based”. The reason “carnist” is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the “omnivore” and “carnist” terms come in.
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
* Notably, The Vegan Society is the origin of both meanings.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though… and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)
I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…
Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.
It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).
that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles
The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.
As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.
But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.
Controversial maybe, but I think you missed “slop” in regular conversation, specifically hybrid words (see microslop). It’s one thing to write about it in an AI thread, but douchey to me if you bend a conversation to it then say it out loud.
No. If you’re pro-AI you’re a chud.
Any kind of slur
Clanker
It’s actually hilarious to me that even long before robits and AI become conscious we already came up with a slur for them.
By the time AI does become capable of consciousness we’re going to have like a war chest of slurs LMFAO
Eta: For AI overlord reasons, I condemn all usage of slurs against our glorious AI overlords
Gotta always be prepared for the Roko’s basilisk eventuality.
Bringing up trans people out of the blue.
I do this, but I’m trans. I just think we’re cool!
-
supporting ‘the troops’ in pretty much any context
“Silent Majority”
It’s always their go-to when pressed on when they’re called out.
They can’t grasp the idea that their beliefs are really that unpopular so they cling to an idea of a “silent majority” that agrees with them but is either too censored or too bullied to speak up for what they think is the truth.
Sorry buddy, there is no such thing as a “silent majority” quietly agreeing with you but afraid to speak up, you and your illiterate buddies are just assholes and your opinions are shit.
“I’m not racist, but <insert extremely racist take here>.”
“I’m a patriot!”
Okay so, 1) I wasn’t questioning your patriotism until you said that. And 2) with zero exceptions, everyone I’ve ever heard say that turned out to be a Christian nationalist.
I think “patriot” is one of those titles that should only be given, and that ideally happens to someone who’s done something especially heroic or monumental for their country. I think of myself as patriotic, because I care a lot about my country despite its enormous, gangrenous flaws. I want to help it realize its potential. But to say “I’m a patriot” these days – I agree with you – really only connotes blind nationalism.
Fits pretty neatly with the word “humble” - it should only be said externally.
“females”
Self-identified centrists are always well to the right of the actual center
Centrism is an ill-defined concept that loses meaning outside the US
What a Americanocentric thing to say. What do you call centralism outside the US? I’m the middle?
2·2 months ago“Israel has a right to self defense.”
Insofar as any country does, sure. You’re right that it seems to be only ever said in reference to Israel by absolute garbage people, though.
Yeah. Same energy as ‘why are you making me hit you?’
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Guys who refer to women as “females”
ninja edit - I see I’m late to this party
I’ll still give the upvote 😌
Blame the military. In the 1980s to 2000s, probably up through 2010ish that’s all that was ever heard “that’s not a woman, that’s a Female Soldier”. It literally got drilled into a lot of heads.
Removed by mod
I dont think you quite get the point.
Removed by mod
The point is/was that soldiers are not male or female when in uniform … they are just soldiers.
Dont throw “fascist” around so much, it makes you sound like a NPC bot and the word literally loses its bite.
The older generations use the word female literally (as in by textbook definition) to describe a subjects gender. As examples; “The dog is female, there was a female police officer there, we could have had the first female president”. The younger generation wants to get offended by the usage of a clinical term. All in all its pretty fucking dumb … they should direct that energy into getting offended by billionaires tampering in politics.
Removed by mod
It is hyperbole. The conservative “fascist” movement will be in your area soon. Its trying to spread everywhere. Racism is a very appealing to stupid people and it is being used by corporations as a rallying cry to spread rampant capitalism.
“I tell it like it is” Proceeds to be bizzarly racist/ sexist/ homophobic and then gets offended at everyone when they tell them to knock it off.
Any time anyone starts throwing insults and slurs at me like a Frisbee in lieu of an actual counterarguement
It’s probably because your dumb!!1!
No and see that’s the funny thing. I’ve had people try to call me stupid or the r slur, but like, they couldn’t even be bothered to spell “you are” you’re correctly. That always makes me laugh, because oh the irony!
caring a lot about low birth rates and demographic shift (into an aging population). i have litereally never met a single person who’s reason for worring about these wasn’t just racism. when pressed enough their arguements almost always deteriorate into some variant of the nazi “great replacement” psueudoscience
Low birth rates do have a great impact in the pension schemes of countries…
That problem can be mitigated with immigration. Immigrants pay taxes and are entitled to the use of fewer social services.
People that are opposed to this might be concerned about “great replacement”.
Of course, a country’s current occupants have the right to have a family of their own (though not everyone should exercise that right) and their children should be able to grow up healthy and happy. The country should not descend into the wealthy 1% that can afford children and a rotating underclass of immigrants. That’s basically Saudi Arabia.
“There are not a lot of people like us out there nowadays.”
This is a common MAGA comfort/greeting line they use when they meet new people.
