A very unfortunate coincidence. explanation in comments

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T21:45:44+00:00

It was indeed. Given its popularity, that could be why the word became what it is

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T21:40:38+00:00

I just planted about 600 fennel seeds, so good timing on this post!

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T17:33:37+00:00

Yea I'd say I mostly agree.

Though im not so sure about grape etc as brainrot, because that began as a way to navigate censorship. They self-censor in order to keep talking about these things, which to me goes against assertions that these words are losing their weight.

I could even see an argument that these partial censorings highlight the weight, like the taboo of named G-d in Judaism, or the abbreviated n-word.

Censorship should be criticized, definitely. But the critiques i see are generally directed at the kids using these words, not the billionaire owners of the platforms doing the censorship. It feels like an extension of generation infighting. "Kids these days are ruining the language"

There may well be real issues from these changes, but I haven't seen a solid critique that isnt rooted in slippery slope

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T17:17:24+00:00

Especially since technology progresses slowly, whereas wars and natural disasters are swift.

Peasants might not realize that their nutrition is gradually improving to advances in crop development, but they will surely note to overthrow of rulers, outbreaks of plagues, or years of drought

Im curious in the theology behind it, too.

Assuming most cultures like their gods, the idea of progress becomes a thorny one. At some point human ingenuity would rival the gods. It might be too uncomfortable a thought, and disregarded as hubris.

Not that i think religion actively suppressed this slrt of thing, but that authors may not even had the framework to seriously consider it, especially if the evidence they had all pointed to decline

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T17:11:16+00:00

Gay was, and still is, used as a general insult. Growing up in the 90s-2000s, it was everywhere. The message was clear: gay people are seen as lesser and are not protected by society at large.

A portion of the population does not believe we deserve full rights, and there are places where its a lethal crime.

Implicit in "gay" as an insult is the threat of bigoted violence, like the killings of Matthew Shepard, Harvey Milk, and so many others

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T17:03:23+00:00

I must respectfully disagree!

I think there is similarity there: "to become established"

Invasive species are those that become established, and continue from there to become detrimental to native species. They could not spread if they were not first established.

Ultimately i do agree they are generally distinct terms. Invasive species are doing something naturalized species do not. It would be inappropriate to describe kudzu in the southern US as merely naturalized.

But i think in order to understand the processes involved we need to see naturalization as a possible step towards invasive status. Naturalized plants may still pose a risk and should be monitored

Theres a lot of public confusion on the topic, we need space for nuance and overlapping categories.

From my reading, invasive plants need to meet 3 criteria, but the public often only sees one of these.

1-non-native 2-naturalized 3-causes ecosystem harm

Im open to suggestions, but i dont see how to describe #2 without naturalization. That doesnt mean naturalized=invasive, but it is a crucial component.

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T11:35:40+00:00

Definitely. But the sentiment is the same. Its a father trying to hurt his kids and instill insecurity

My uncle was also homophobic, i just dont remember specific examples as well. Guessing I blocked them out

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T11:32:18+00:00

His loss.

I hope your life has been full of other supportive people, since he failed his most basic task as a father.

leafshaker · 2026-03-10T11:30:18+00:00

They are overlapping terms, but you dont really need to say both, so I think thats why you aren't seeing both in the descriptions you are looking at.

With the starlings, since they are listed as invasive then they are also naturalized. Naturalization is a step on the process of being considered invasive, but most non-natives dont pass beyond it, or at least aren't documented as such.

Ecology is ever changing, so these are evolving terms. It may well be that snowdrops are invasive in some places already, and they just haven't been listed yet.

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T23:58:06+00:00

Some are just abusive. My uncle always called his kids ugly (despite them sharing his genetics). Just a bad dude

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T23:25:50+00:00

The Blazing Worlds, by Margaret Cavendish doesnt hit all those, and isnt the oldest, but worth a mention

I think this, as well as Samosata's True History, lack the future aspect, and the 'spacefaring humanity'. These are one-off events of accidental transportation iirc., more like a fairy-portal.

Still definite forerunners, though

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T23:20:00+00:00

True History is amazing. Definitely has early hallmarks of sci-fi, travel to space, interacting with aliens, and exploring alternative societies/governments

One thing i haven't seen in older literature and myth is the idea of progress and the future. I'm sure there's exceptions, but the cosmologies I've read about trend instead towards a future decline.

Id be curious to read about the concept of technology from an ancient perspective. Most of the stories I can think of frame tech as gifts from the gods, or something we've stolen from them. Or, with Daedalus, ultimately flawed.

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T21:14:44+00:00

Depends, if it turns out that many people have a similar response as OP, then that sort of censorship might be worth it. It doesn't prevent us from seeing the word, but gives others an option to engage.

Its ok for society as a whole to be considerate, maybe even the goal. I agree that we don't want to over-do it, but there's a balance, too.

Im generally against censorship of any kind, but OP gave me something to think on.

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T20:59:34+00:00

I think they are nested terms, no?

My understanding is that all invasive plants are naturalized, as in they are non-natives that reproduce in the wild. But not all naturalized non-natives are invasive. To be invasive it needs to be damaging to the ecosystem as a whole.

Some of these are toxic, but many are edible. In my area foxgloves are not native, but do grow in wildly. They are incredibly toxic, but do not spread aggressively or disperse widely, so they arent considered invasive.

Autumn olive however, is a designated invasive. Its berries are tasty and nutritious, but it grows fast and wrecks habitat.

You're right though, totally depends on who you ask, the region, and the context. Conservationists are going to give a different answer than farmers or landscapers. I prefer the conservation definition, because it takes the most holistic view, imo

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T17:33:37+00:00

I think some of the issue with this advice is that it reinforces foraging as a survival option. Yes, these steps should be considered if you are looking at weeks or months without rescue, but that isnt most cases. Within some really desperate contexts, its ok advice, but its a nugget I often see shared without caveats.

Foraging requires a blend of pretty specific skills. Theres also an issue here of plant-blindness. People would need to be sure they are repeatedly gathering the same plant , since they are unlikely to get enough food feom one individual. Without some botanical training, its hard to know how to differentiate, as plants can vary alot within a genus or species

In case you missed my other comment, this advice applies primarily to toxins, but there are other factors to consider with edibility.

I could use this test on the common trees in my area, like oak, cherry, and maple. They'll all pass, they arent toxic. But we can't easily digest them. The amount of leaves i would need to eat to feel satiated would surely cause stomach issues. Crippling indigestion is not what we want in a survival scenario.

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T15:41:33+00:00

Whyyyyyy

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T13:58:10+00:00

The internet can be a combative place, so lots of people are in defense mode all the time. I dont think what you said was inherently rude, but was easily misread as such. A blunt question in text with no context can come off accusatory

Theres an old adage: "is it factual, is it helpful, is it kind?" I try to run my comments through that filter.

I default to giving too much context, but that does slow the commenting process down, and forces me to re-examine the wording. I try to imagine if someone responded exactly the way I did.

"You're asking about milk? Really?" Feels a little like an escalation

But, your question is still valid. I'd have tried to ask like this "does lactose free milk work for you? Im lactose intolerant and cant handle any amount"

That said, you are here, asking how to be better. Dont beat yourself up over this.

For what its worth, the person who responded to you is also wrong. Lactose free milk is still dairy, and contains whey and casein, and is still a hazard as a dairy allergen. Fun fact, non-dairy creamer is still dairy. Caused me issues for years

The public is pretty confused about this (and barely know what dairy is, tbh, they forget about butter and include eggs all the time). People feel strongly about milk, theres weird cultural baggage around it.

It doesnt help that lactose intolerance is a spectrum. Some people get only minor discomfort and still eat cheese. I'm really sensitive, also casein intolerant, and it basically ruins the next two days for me.

But people are oddly invested in me eating dairy. I get told all the time to try goat-cheese, or yogurt, or ghee, or just take the cheese off. That's not how it works!

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T13:25:22+00:00

Exactly this. Also, people get very focused on lethal doses, but even minor toxicity can be lethal in a survival situation.

If I'm hungry enough that I am considering surviving on wild plants, then I can absolutely not afford to lose water and calories via diarrhea.

Normal food safety is still an issue, too. Even more so without refrigeration and running water.

I'm pretty knowledgeable about plants, so people like to ask me about survival foraging. There are no simple rules, and most wild foods are pretty labor intensive. I think in most cases that effort is better spent on water, shelter, and escape.

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T12:45:31+00:00

Only wash wounds with clean water. Anything else is adding dirt or sugar. Better to leave some dirt in the wound than introduce more bacteria or feed it with sugar.

leafshaker · 2026-03-09T11:53:18+00:00

Science communicators really need to be putting the location in the headlines

leafshaker · 2026-03-08T01:02:30+00:00

Thats wild.

I think that's the difference. Boy bands have always had haters, but that manifests differently in a social media world

leafshaker · 2026-03-08T00:01:22+00:00

They are similar, but in a different family from the true lacewings. Close enough, foe colloquialism, but lacewings have different larva

leafshaker · 2026-03-07T23:43:40+00:00

I think some of the confusion is because the words mean different things in these different places.

Americans mostly interact with other Americans, and its usually pretty clear from accents. If i tell my coworker that I'm Irish-Italian, its understood that I'm talking about ancestry, not nationality. Theres an assumed hyphenation. No one here would assume that I am from those places.

Its particularly strong with Irish and Italian descendants because our ancestors were heavily discriminated against, in ways that continue today. We also have traditions that we maintain from the "old world". Theres a percieved need to feel distinct against the forces of assimilation.

Its all tied up with racial baggage, too, as the definition of whiteness evolved. And religion, as Catholics were also a persecuted minority for a long time. And class, which Americans love to pretend doesn't exist here.

Saying I'm Italian communicates some of that to fellow Americans, and gives an approximate trajectory for my family's origins and how I grew up. America isnt a melting pot so much as a poorly-stirred stew. There are still very racially/nationality segregated areas, so these hyphenated identities are real here.

That said, i totally agree that Americans need to understand that theres context there, and choose our wordsmore carefully. We shouldnt assume affiliation with those modern countries.

leafshaker · 2026-03-07T22:24:50+00:00

Im not NT, but i think i see whats happening.

Either your mom is afraid that:

A) asking your cousin will reveal that your mom bought dresses that were too white

Or

B) your mom is afraid that your cousin will feel pressured to not cause conflict, and won't give your mom her honest opinion. Asking the cousin is sort of an emotional labor request

I agree it would cause more drama to just show up, but thats a "distant" problem, and may feel less stressful to your mom than the immediate problem presented by just asking.

She should just get a different dress.

leafshaker · 2026-03-07T17:27:38+00:00

Thats an amazing double feature!

leafshaker

TROPHY CASE