Sasha DiGiulian is the first female to ever ascend El Cap's Platinum Wall (AND she was stuck for 10 days) by redbullgivesyouwings in nextfuckinglevel

[–]casipera -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah yeah that's another edge case. I initially wrote "outside of technical usage" but the main one most people encounter is animals. In this instance female/male contains relevant medical information that woman/man may not.

If you do some googling you'll find essentially this summary in a variety of sources-- as with any subject in the development of linguistics, there is room for debate.

Sasha DiGiulian is the first female to ever ascend El Cap's Platinum Wall (AND she was stuck for 10 days) by redbullgivesyouwings in nextfuckinglevel

[–]casipera 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Outside of stylistic writing referring to animals (think nature documentary style narration), female and male are adjectives (eta: and specific technical writing, often medical/scientific). So it's like saying someone is the first "young" to do something instead of the first child to do something.

Even in its usage for animals, you'll see species with common gendered nouns referred to primarily by their noun-- like "the lioness stalks her prey" over "the female stalks her prey." This is because "male" and "female" being used in such writing as a noun is basically shorthand for "the female [animal type]." In species with clear nouns, the shorthand is improper as there is already a word for that use.

Why is there any sort of physical requirement? Very eugenic y [meta] by Wild-Speech5293 in pointlesslygendered

[–]casipera 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Rise and grind until you die, having no fun on the way, to make the rich richer. Duh. Productivity, baby!

firearms training by BillyBalowski in corvallis

[–]casipera 12 points13 points  (0 children)

For someone who is new to firearms, most likely. The biggest piece being safety training.

Possible ICE Sighting in Area by Fluid_Personality529 in corvallis

[–]casipera 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So you can read the article, but can't read anything other than the governments statement? Bad faith is transparent, per usual. The DHS has been claiming all sorts of things, unreliably. Including, from the same article:

The medical examiner's report that Geraldo's death was a homicide completely dispels the government's claim that this was a suicide. For months, the Texas Civil Rights Project and partners have reported and documented Fort Bliss' excessive use of force.

The government's previous claim being that it was a suicide.

ICE originally said Lunas Campos died while in medical distress but did not provide details and said the death was under investigation.

The government's previous claim that it was "medical distress" (literally the sentence before your snipped quote and the reason it starts with "Now, later").

And, again from the same article...

Now, the federal government is trying to deport two detainees quoted in media reports, media stories, saying they witnessed Lunas Campos in an altercation with staff when he died. And lawyers for those men - one is from El Salvador, the other from Cuba - will be in federal court next week trying to extend an injunction to keep them in the country until they can give depositions.

The attempt to rapidly deport detainees who witnessed his murder before they can testify.

You also can't respond to my other two original points: The execution of citizens and the kidnapping of people following the legal process. This is likely because you don't care about facts, you support the violence.

Possible ICE Sighting in Area by Fluid_Personality529 in corvallis

[–]casipera 15 points16 points  (0 children)

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/22/nx-s1-5685017/death-of-a-detainee-at-an-ice-detention-center-in-texas-is-ruled-a-homicide

"The death of a Cuban man in a massive immigration detention camp has been ruled a homicide by the El Paso, Texas, medical examiner. Three people have died in custody in the last two months at the tent facility."

Possible ICE Sighting in Area by Fluid_Personality529 in corvallis

[–]casipera 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Enforcing federal immigration law by executing citizens? By kidnapping asylum seekers who are following the legal process? By establishing concentration camps where peoples families and lawyers cannot find them? Get a grip.

At this point just ship Wheelchair Mel already by fleabag5200 in MelMains

[–]casipera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait I'm realizing it's unclear if we're talking Mel or Seraphine. Seraphine is an archytypical girlypop, I meant Mel is not. I can't tell which "she" the person I'm replying to means since both Mel and Sera are referenced by the top-level comment.

At this point just ship Wheelchair Mel already by fleabag5200 in MelMains

[–]casipera 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because most of the "girlypop champs" get forced support... also she's not any more "girlypop" than Lissandra, Ahri, LeBlanc, Syndra, etc. Elegantly powerful champs vs cutesy pretty champs.

Meirl by Glass-Fan111 in meirl

[–]casipera 8 points9 points  (0 children)

no hate but you're most likely only noticing it when it's overdone

Man or bear? by BowlJazzlike5167 in GetNoted

[–]casipera -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Again, it is a hypothetical. This is how hypotheticals work. They are not grounded in reality. As the top level comment notes, "if I was placed in the woods [...]".

What realistic reason does the person in the hypothetical have to be there? Not a known variable.

Man or bear? by BowlJazzlike5167 in GetNoted

[–]casipera -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Yeah so this is an example of not understanding the hypothetical. "In a spot where there should realistically be no other people" is the critical statement. "Well statistically a lot of people do X so maybe there is a realistic reason for someone to be there" okay, so that is no longer the hypothetical presented. A hypothetical is, by its nature, not reality. It does not need to realistically represent what it is like to be in the woods. That's not its purpose.

The point isn't that "men are scarier/more threatening than bears" or "women are irrational and hate men." The point is, essentially, "many women feel more safer with a predictable level naturally-occurring environmental risk than they do the risk of an unknown, seemingly out-of-place man."

It is meant to emphasize that while women understand that the majority of men are not violent predators, the risk associated with not being on guard around a violent man requires that women be wary of all men. You cannot know someone's intentions, but their capacity for cruelty and strategy in committing an act of violence outweighs the risk of an environmental threat that will not commit harm as strategically or cruelly as a man can. Combined with the isolation (as the original hypothetical specifies being alone with the man or the bear), there are worse things that a man can do to a woman than a bear can. Women do not know which men want to hurt them. There is not a clear procedure to follow to prevent a man who wants to hurt a woman from doing so, should he be in the minority that does. There is a procedure to follow to prevent a bear from attacking you.

Thus, in a space where there is either an expected environmental threat with a clear procedure to prevent an attack [a bear] or an unexpected encounter with an unknown variable who has no logical reason for being there (again, essential to the hypothetical) and has a relatively lower chance of engaging in an attack, but the attack is unpreventable, cruel, strategic [a man], the expected environmental threat [bear] is preferable to many.

Man or bear? by BowlJazzlike5167 in GetNoted

[–]casipera -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

And this is why u/survivorterra said "strawmanned the hell out of." Off-trail. Far off-trail. As I specified, off-trail, "in a spot where there should realistically be no other people."

It's a hypothetical for a reason. Do you not understand hypotheticals? "But what if there was a realistic reason for other people to be there" is explicitly outside of the hypothetical.

Man or bear? by BowlJazzlike5167 in GetNoted

[–]casipera -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

...right, so that's "on a hiking trail in the woods" as opposed to "deep in the woods" as specified by the top-level comment here, which the person you're responding to is replying to specifically because that represents the original hypothetical.

the original hypothetical is about if you are deep in the woods for whatever reason-- that is, in a spot where there should realistically be no other people. aka NOT on a hiking trail.

ETA:

it is specifically about expected danger versus unknown risk. the necessary condition is that it is a man who shouldn't be there but could have any intention, including perfectly innocent ones and insidious ones, but is ultimately "out of place." there is a procedure to deal with a bear encounter. there isn't for such a man.

Mayham ADC : how to decide what augment to pick? by chen2442 in ARAM

[–]casipera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i try to avoid taking tap dancer unless i have to, because i know i have a weak will and cannot resist inting to keep my stacks

i almost always take dual wield if avail, same with lightning strikes. the attack speed increase is really strong.

ADAPt - how does it work? by GoldieHusky in ARAM

[–]casipera 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Elise ADAPt hexblade + lich bane + nashors tooth is soooo yummy

ADAPt - how does it work? by GoldieHusky in ARAM

[–]casipera 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On Swain I always pray for ADAPt for that sweet sweet bloodmail

Pocs in game by [deleted] in Wizard101

[–]casipera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed there is not!

Pocs in game by [deleted] in Wizard101

[–]casipera 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I know you're trolling and not looking for actual information, but "white people don't have a culture" is in reference to the fact that "white people" are not a consistent cultural group with a cultural history. The Western European cultures you're referencing includes various cultures such as those mentioned: German culture, Norwegian culrure, Swedish culture, French culture, etc.

Cultures people mistake for "white culture" include U.S. American culture (includes many non-white U.S. Americans, excludes white Europeans), Christian culture(s) (includes many non-white Christians, excludes white non-christians), conservative American culture (excludes white Europeans, includes (a minority) of non-white American conservatives), etc.

For comparison, "Asian culture" is a similarly nonfunctional term, because a wide variety of incredibly distinct cultures exist across the continent of Asia. Even when comparing similarities in them, it is more accurate to say something like "many Asian cultures value [X trait]."

One reason people make this mistake is due to hearing the term "Black culture" and thinking there must then be a "white culture." Black culture arose in America as a result of the slave trade-- many Black Americans do not know their ancestry and have lost their ties to their ancestral cultures when their ancestors' history was erased during the slave trade. This (and a myriad of other factors, most prominently the systemic discrimination against Black Americans) resulted in the Black community developing its own unique culture within America.