LupineTroubles [he/him, they/them]

This estimation is based on nominal GDP per capita, Turkey currently has higher GDP per capita than Malaysia but these economic predictions that extend further than 5 years are either alarmist or smug with no real basis since they barely ever do anything but extend current trends over standard models. Likely nobody was predicting in 2007 that UK would fall so far behind US in terms of GDP per capita by 2030.

It’s interesting how a derogatory term like lunatic was actually less judgmental in its original inception since it implied a common human condition rather than implying an essential character of a person.

It’s well appreciated.

I understand now what you mean especially in regards to gender neutral and explicitly degendered, though I have my reservations of the supposed gender neutral or degendered words that use masculine form as default form still even if they obviously serve that function in terms of grammatical gender. I suppose I was thrown off by the set criteria and them being used as requirements. Nevertheless I think there are many languages that use gender neutral terms that can be bent way better to be degendered proactively than using default masculine forms in Romance languages in this regard.

There is a lot of inertia to lingua franca and because English cemented itself as such at such a crucial time of internet age globalization I don’t think it will be toppled any time soon because it completely left the anglophone world, it is also a pleasant and flexible language without a language academy so it serves that function really well. I also especially don’t think Esperanto will replace it, nor do I think a sign language will. In regards to Esperanto both because I don’t think it is useful or widespread enough for that and in terms of sign language because I think learning a second language comes easier to most people than learning a sign language.

I am not at all annoyed or tense nor seeking conflict in this, I apologize if I come off as confrontational as it is a general fault of mine.

I just felt a bit flabbergasted that it is of import that a non-binary pronoun ought to not be gender neutral by default. As to put it in more concise terms, I am trying to understand why a non-binary pronoun not being gender neutral is a criteria, and why using an originally gendered pronoun to reach a gender neutral pronoun meets this criteria but using a gender neutral pronoun to create another gender neutral pronoun doesn’t. I would definitely want to hear your arguments against English or Chinese as international languages, in context of both being highly analytic languages with a wealth of general and specific vocabulary.

It’s also natural to make mistakes especially one is making statements of to top of their head, what I said was not meant as a gotcha about how long Esperanto existed but the fact that its borrowings seem much more recent rather than it being a history of centuries long process. Feeling embarrassed if one feels they failed to live up to their own standards is okay too of course, we do have obligations to ourselves.

For clarity and in sake of honesty I do have somewhat of a negative opinion on Esperanto but that mainly is due to its existence as the most popular conlang and the fact I find its claim to internationality a bit fanciful and optimistic to say the least.

I mean Esperanto might have borrowed from other languages now though calling it centuries when the language has only been around since 1880s seems a bit of a stretch. It is just so thoroughly European in its inception that it is using a less word borrowings from other languages even for terms which are common even in plain English, so it fails already at a basic level on providing any grounding for anyone but speakers of Romance or Germanic languages for the most part. Nor is having a smaller vocabulary base and using grammar function something easier to learn necessarily especially when said vocabulary is derived only from aforementioned Romance and Germanic languages. In my experience learning a highly analytical language like English which doesn’t have as much inflection or agglutination is easier than either highly inflective languages like German or languages with varying levels of agglutination, since a greater vocabulary is more common in analytical languages to increase specificity but in reality you can get by with basic words which tend to be around same percentage of words in daily use for most. Overall I don’t find it a particularly easy language or productive language to learn for anyone who isn’t already coming from some sort of Romance or Germanic baseline. English or Chinese makes much more sense to me as an international language than a language constructed with assumption that more conjugation with fewer words is more conductive to international communication like this.

What is this feature? Name a few languages in which this feature can be found, and provide examples of what it looks like in practice in them.

Languages in which the third person pronouns are gendered in singular but either are or can be gender neutral in plural. Such as English they.

Where in the text does it say that this feature is superior to working up from gender neutral? What does it mean to work up from gender neutral?

This part “The word clearly evokes non-binarity as opposed to just gender neutrality.” and then using in Esperanto a gendered term and degendering it with plural to make it non-binary. Why is this a requirement? Why not just use a gender neutral term or perhaps work with that to specify non-binary instead? You started with a gendered term (sirs), which is degendered in plural (ge-sirs) and worked up from that to make it non-binary (ge-sir). As opposed to using for example they.

What is the requirement to be met and where in the text is this indicated?

The first criteria in the list which you then talk about other words failing said criteria, strong implication that these criteria and requirements to met and that gender neutrality by default is a failing requirement?

What does it mean for the claim to feel hollow?

That if the criteria used to seek a specific word just results in using a gendered term and making it plural then back to singular, it feels hollow because many languages are already doing this if they lack gender neutral third person plurals, as opposed to just using a gender neutral third person singular (if it exists in the language aside from polite speech).

Where in the text does it say that this is better?

Here: “The word clearly evokes non-binarity as opposed to just gender neutrality.” (in context of using a gendered term then making it degendered with plural, which is meant to be preferable to using a gender neutral term).

You made those three assumptions, you further made two more that I don’t talk to “rural” people and that I don’t know any hunters. I am not from West and a significant portion of my family lived and lives rurally, the kind that does subsistence farming in small yards with a small barn with couple of cow or sheep and a few chickens and sells a bit of produce. I spent quite a bit of time in village houses as a child and happen to live in a place that used to be more rural until urban development absorbed it, I also regularly visit places to buy produce that actually have working dogs, cats that hunt pests and have to keep firearms to kill boars and wolves. Even in such a case is hunting rarely necessary for them and while some do hunt it’s mostly to put some more food on the table for variety.

Rest of what you are saying comes back to using people killing animals as a blanket proactive justification for killing more animals for no reason. People hunting rarely for subsistence or occasionally to protect livestock does not mean killing animals in general is something to be defended as fine. Naturalistic arguments about how humans are not apart from the nature also doesn’t mean much, humans already raise and kill animals at an industrial scale and hunting isn’t more or less natural, it just is something that people do. Troubles that come with large scale animal husbandry with industrial methods of animal raising and killing doesn’t excuse killing animals for fun. Suffering does not justify further suffering. If anything, the fact that factory farming exists should exactly be reason for people to wantonly hunt animals without specific purposes. People already greatly reduced living habitat for most other animals and driving with a car into few remaining ranges to kill the animals there with gear from a hobby shop doesn’t make you a subsistence hunter.

All of that just means you like to hunt because you want to and I am going to go ahead and assume it is done so recreationally when I know many who live off the land and very rarely hunt anything as opposed to grazing a few animals and only kill boars, wolves or very rarely bears when they are within sight of their houses or grazing areas.

That’s a lot of assumptions about someone made on a response specifically talking about hunting for sport isn’t it?

I also find it a bit facetious to be speaking as if most hunting isn’t done recreationally to kill animals for the sake of killing animals for fun, even in case of culling where most do it as part of hunting for sport and the fact it is useful is more of a beneficial secondary outcome to be used as an excuse often with great deal of jubilance.

As for the few people who actually hunt for subsistence especially due to lack of alternatives which is rare anywhere in most of the developed and indeed developing world or to otherwise guard livestock which is more common, their practical need to kill animals doesn’t proactively justify anyone else killing animals for other reasons just because it happens to be same activity on most basic terms.

I just can’t care for Esperanto for its total disinterest for any languages outside of European Indo-European family while claiming to be an international language, frankly English is more international than Esperanto in its widescale borrowing from various non-European languages.

Degenderifying with plural is just such a common European feature too that the claim it is superior to working up from gender neutral to specifically construct a non-binary also feels hollow when given as a requirement to met. Why is plural degender is meant to be better than gender neutral by default?

Both cats and dogs were kept because their function historically, cats for mostly pest control and dogs for guarding and herding. Nowadays both are kept for companionship which should not to be minimized as an important function either.

Real question is where to stand on dogs kept for hunting mostly by aristocracy and then by bourgoise for sport. Not to even mention dogs used by colonizing forces such as Spanish for tracking and subduing people.

Not paying the troops is a very common thing historically, if anything Byzantines were quite regular with payment of troops by standards of the time even troops that would not be qualified as standing or professional to be paid in most other places which is what makes late Byzantine situation exceptional.

An entire wikipedia article for butter on bread. I guess they will add it on UNESCO as German heritage soon too to keep the count of those equal between Germany and France and somehow either greater than India and Middle-east combined.

It is not a particularly inventive thing. Kadayif is widely used in various desserts in Middle-east and it is often serviced with pistachios. It is more Levantine than Gulf dessert, that’s why pistachios are used since pistachios grow in the area and are used commonly in and on desserts. That chocolate is just a slopified version of kadayif and is alike many of the other chocolates with filling where some sort of mush is covered by chocolate, none of which I particularly like.

Reason why it got so popular is because social media hype, obviously. Dubai is an artificial city sustained by the wealthy and influencers marketing it on social media so it proliferated quickly that city is directly connected to social media hype and glamour culture.

It is an unfortunate but an expected (maybe even planned?) consequence of Israel’s actions. Everyone called that if Israel is willing to weaponize accusations of anti-Semitism to silence dissent against its ongoing genocide it will trivialize and normalize actual anti-Semitism, especially in West where anti-Semitism has been mostly driven outside social acceptability institutionally if not completely societally as a concentrated effort since WW2. Israel was willing and perhaps depending on this taking place when they started calling university students protesting blood libel and frankly milquetoast articles criticizing Western weapons sales to Israel as anti-Semitic.

I don’t know what is the solution to this, a lot of people lack nuance even with good intentions when they have to discern overlapping problems, hence for example people highlighting the issues in Palestine about LGBT rights or whatever as if killing them solves that even when not being cynical about such.

It is just classism and the timeless urban against rural conflict. A person who becomes one or the other gets the convert’s zeal. There will be people justifying this saying they have problematic attitudes and behaviors but I don’t put much faith in this because often the person doing the criticism have all sorts of unexamined beliefs themselves.

If someone is born into better circumstances and never question their own attitudes and behaviors they can’t be expected to have necessary perspective to evaluate the beliefs of others in more unfortunate circumstances in good faith. This of course doesn’t mean social circumstances and people in that situation cannot be examined or criticized rather it has to come with self-awareness.

Counter-part of this is people from countries under western imperialist pressure or umbrella claiming that existence of queer people or communities in their society as western subversion. Not realizing this attitude gives easy justification to imperialist projects as far as invasion and occupation.

Of course the military-economic dominance will always try to find socio-cultural excuses to legitimate their blatant materialist or imperialist aims. Back in 19th century it was that Orientals were too effeminate and sodomite to govern themselves, now it is the opposite and they are too bigoted and sexist.

Still, this doesn’t excuse very real and sometimes violent prejudice queer people suffer in those countries but indiscriminate mass killing is so obviously contrary to any queer liberation that you have to immediately assume the person suffers from ideological brain rot to even remotely consider that the way to save a group of people from oppression is to kill all of them.

I suppose the phrase “Kill them all God will know his own” is not exclusive to belief systems with an after life, since that’s only logical conclusion any of these people who got their brain fried from audaciously blatant propaganda could reach.

Language by commitee is a defensive and ultimately losing proposition that damages the language more than loanwords. Trying to invent equivalent words for concepts, often just as direct transliterations to peg to loanword, without any of the associated meanings either in the borrowed language or how the word is used in borrowing language is crippling to the expression of the language.

It is just especially absurd with French because the French academics haven’t really gotten over French losing its lingua franca status and French politicians and intellectuals alike try to force French gratuitously to every possible media.

Ladislaus the Post-Posthumous.

What’s with this burning desire to have an instrumentalized slur for anything and everything? I mean I am not saying don’t use scornful, perjorative or even deragotary language but it can be a lot less specified while remaining targeted. It reminds me of how Anglophone countries have so many slurs all with some purposeful meaning while in most other countries a slur is often just an ignorant exonym that became crude and offensive to use or a generalized variant of foreigner or weakling or whatever.

Children can be victims both incidentally and circumstancially while born to privilege, their victimization even if minor doesn’t require rationalization this way especially when the man in question is so obviously and clearly in the wrong.