I'm not really here to argue, i was just sharing something i learned earlier today. but i will point out that the entire concept of dunk tanks was racist in origin, not just the old name(s). It's original form was just trying to throw balls at black people's faces, and it developed from there.
oh that's clever, I hadn't even though of that angle. Sadly i think the consensus is it was based off of dunk tanks
until the 50's it was exclusively black people in the contraption and it had a more colorful name. CW slurs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunk_tank#Origin
Big ups on name changes, I had no idea and it's always good to root that kind of stuff out.
however 
the removal of the concept of the dunk tank. The loweffort liberal slopbucket is a pillar of this community. It may not be the most productive, but it is an infinite wellspring of leftist-aligned content, which is always needed and lets people continue to participate in a leftist community when they don't feel like theoryposting/theoryreading. unless the vision for this website is solely theoryposting and anyone who wants to have fun has to schlep back to 
My bad on typing 6 as the final number, typo.
I think the image is discussing the two ways most people interpret the (deliberately slightly obtuse) equation 6 / 2(1+2) Following BEDMAS BOMDAS PEMDAS or however you call it in your area as written, the correct interpretation is interpretation #2, which resolves to 9,
However many people also interpret the implitic multiplication in 2(1+2) to have higher priority, or makes the 2 and () into one unit, as if put into Parentheses, which leads to interpretation #1, which resolves to 1.
The real answer is to make the original question less obtuse, but any parsing algorithm correctly given the rules of mathematical notation would resolve it to 9
I'm not trying to start an argument over this, but I respectfully disagree.
6 / 2 * (1 + 2)
6 / 2 * 3
3 * 3
9 edit: accidentally said 6 here
Parentheses first, then division and multiplication granting priority to operations on the left.
"Boneless" "wings" now with bones and not made of wings! Boned chicken nuggets
Roughly 28 million dollars to unlock it right now
if you repeat the same arguments people have heard a million times
Really? I thought approaching the dude/bro/buddy issue from a linguistic perscriptivism vs descriptivism perspective was at least a somewhat novel approach, and worth bringing up for discussion if anyone felt comfortable doing so with me.
in a trans meme community that's an place for trans people to get away from such
When I started posting, I thought this was in a general comm, If i was aware I was inserting my opinion in a comm I am guest in as a non-trans person, I would have brought it up more delicately or considered saving it for a general comm. I appologise again if starting this kind of discussion is not welcome here, and if anyone wants me to shut up about it, I will.
If someone doesn't want to be called a removed, buddy, dude, etc then don't.
I wholesale agree with you on this, as I said in the comment you replied to, I do not support intentional or malicious use of bro/guys to misgender, And if anyone in particular were to ask me to stop referring to them as such, I would (and do) try my best to do so. I am not and would never argue in favor of ignoring people's direct wishes on what they want to referred to as.
After my discussions with users in other threads from this comment, I think my personal conclusion is that while from some perspectives the "dude is gender neutral" approach may have legs, the people who use it are usually doing so as an excuse to directly dismiss people's wishes about what they want to be referred to, at best to cling to "being right" and at worst to invalidate people's gender identity or validity as a person, which is cringe.
You know that's entirely valid. I tend to over-empathize with groups I superficially fall into (such as people who use dude/bro as gender neutral) and assume that their intentions are as innocent as mine, which they may well not be, which leave me dying on the same hill as bigots.
Yes I know the opinion is controversial, that's why I'm unsure of on it, and hence want to start a discussion with knowledgeable and relevant people In order to either reject it or become less unsure on it. (and If you'll look in some of the other threads my original comment has started, I have gotten some genuinely good information and perspectives in response)
I take mild offense to the implication I am being dishonest on this issue. I understand that some people using devils advocate are doing so to push their views while distancing themselves from them in case the discussion "fails". I am not doing that. If you are unable to believe me on that, then I do not believe there is any more productive conversation for us to have. My views do not get any more "extreme" than that, and I wanted to make that clear by expressing that even this, a view that may be controversial, is something that I am debating with myself and not a strongly held belief.
If you already know why it's controversial enough to abstract yourself from the argument, then why are you arguing for it?
because understanding that something is controversial is not the same as understanding if or why it is wrong. Communism is controversial, should we stop talking about that here?
It's not hard. Your vernacular doesn't matter. You don't have to understand the why in order to address people in a way that makes them feel respected as a person.
I never said I would refuse to change how I address someone if they tell me how i do so makes them uncomfortable, I wanted to discuss whether the wholesale rejection of a new development in our language was good. Please see my other comment for a full description of my goals, As I outlined there, I could have approached the situation better, but I do dislike your reaction to my genuine attempt to clarify my goals and stance.
If this isnt the space to have a discussion about this, that is fine and I apologize. What I was trying to say is: i am unsure if i agree with the opinion, but I thought of it and it seems solid, so i would like to have a discussion about it to see if it is, and hence if i should agree with it. intentional devils advocate isnt great, but also, if no one ever talks about opinions that might be wrong, they never learn those opinions are wrong.
Fair enough, sorry for misrepresenting your culture. The point I was trying to get to was that, in general, prescribing use of language is bad. A word means what the person saying it intended it to mean (and of course, the other side of that blade means that calling anyone anything can be rude / hurtful if it has that intention behind it) and as English develops, in some dialects of it, words like "bro" and "dude" are not meant with the meaning of "man family member" and "man (gender)" in some applications, and choosing to resist that change because the words previous meanings could be harmful in some contexts might not be something I agree with.
If this is not the space for this discussion to be had I apologize, but it is one i would like to have
I appologise (un-ironically)
I admit I am still a little debatebro brained, and I did not realize this was the trans specific comm when I first posted, If this is not a space for disagreement, I apologize for inserting my opinion into it.
I do not support intentional or malicious use of bro/guys to misgender, And if anyone in particular were to ask me to stop referring to them as such, I would (and do) try my best to do so.
My goal was to start a productive discussion about the conflict between the take you posted and linguistic descriptivism, which I tend to align myself with and believe is a popular opinion in these circles. I feel justified to discuss this issue as I identify with groups that use bro and dude as a gender neutral form of address, and hence I feel justified to defend myself. once again, if this is not the space for that I apologize, and will remove myself from the discussion, however If anyone would like to have a productive discussion on the topic I am open to changing or refining my opinion.
I also used a poor tone for my goal, and to communicate my dissatisfaction in the response i received, reedit snark is a hard thing to get out of your system.
edit: forgot how formatting worked, broke up brick of text into pieces
Yes yes sorry I forgot no one is allowed to be contrarian about anything ever
Alternative take that i dont necessarily beleive in but has been bouncing around in my head a while: In the dialect of the English language my sub-culture typically ascribes to, dude is gender neutral when used as an address, please don't assume I am using language incorrectly because it doesn't follow the rules of your dialect. Would you go to Australia and pear-clutch because someone called you a c*** (in the familiar/genial use of the word)
edit: https://hexbear.net/comment/4648973
I've put dough on top of my computer to rise while playing games before because of the extra warmth, purpose of a system is what is does
What like "oops I took a wrong turn and crashed into the core of a nuclear reactor?" We have some revolutionary new technology that they've been cooking up in the lab to help with that, it's called a fence / walll / bollards
c/loweffort_liberal_slopbucket