A man-hour is agender. Did Neil Armstrong only talk about men when he said "One small step for man."? In this context, man refers to all humans. All of mankind. The one who reported him should be fired for being stupid.
Followed through etymology “man” simply means “human” or “person.” In fact, long ago males were called “wērman” and females “wiffman” and neither gender was just referred to as “man.” Going back further the roots of the concept are very interesting but it gets kinda obscure, what’s important is that around the 13th century or so the wēr started to get dropped and males started to just be called “man” with females keeping the prefix to denote gender by differentiation of the two. Obviously having the same word denote a single gender and apply to all of our species can occasional cause confusion (“All men welcome” does it mean all males or all humans?) and with the swell in female equality movements in the later 20th century some found that the linguistic anachronism of keeping the gender neutral “man” as a component of so many words was problematic. If we wanted to simplify the whole thing we’d go back to using “wērmen” instead of “man” and put it to bed.
Because people like to get outraged at stories which stretch plausibility but speak to their inner fears or feeling about the overall state of society and the extremes of liberalism, conservatism, etc in “modern times.” Such news is usually intended for those who hold opposite beliefs to the underlying but taken to extreme concept presented. They rely on reactionism by the reader. That alone grabs views which is more than enough for businesses or individuals just trying to whore attention or troll. But beyond that, the secondary goals can be many. Even if something isn’t true, by planting the idea in a persons head you influence their thought process, it’s an effective form of propaganda if one has an agenda, and unlike more “traditional” routes of information isn’t as easily traced or questioned in connection to the source. People also like reading things hat make them feel smarter or better than others, and most see extremism as stupidity so it allows them to feel superior to an...
Most people on the internet are civill. Just look at this website. Almost all of us get along rather peacefully. There are a few anon guests who like to throw around insults, but they're uncommon even among the other anon guests. It's just that the loudest people are often seen as the majority. But that screaming person is sitting in a crowd of thousands that are politely having conversations.
The people may we’ll be civil, but the discourse quite often is not. I do agree with you however that humans tend to notice 1 unpleasant thing out of 100 pleasant ones more than they notice 1 pleasant thing out of 100 unpleasant ones, and that the ones who stand out in a crowd are often the “loudest” “most vocal” or “most outrageous” which will tend to be the embodiments of the worst traits of a group. For the record, I wasn’t being serious, but making a joke off of the common cultural meme of the “offensive/obnoxious internet troll” and meant it in no way as a negative reflection on funsubstabce or it’s users. I apologize if my comment was taken seriously, or caused offense.
If you don’t think, therefore you aren’t...?
But if you don’t believe it, it doesn’t exist. But if it doesn’t believe you, you don’t exist. If you don’t exist, you can’t be here to not believe it, so it still exists. But if you don’t believe it, it can’t exist so you must exist? But if you exist, and it doesn’t, then how could it not believe you? So to not believe you it must exist and therefore you can’t exist? I’ll need to run some numbers on this and get back to you both...
Hard to believe they would let go of a loyal employee for a small complaint. Unless he'd been a terrible employee and this was the last straw that they're using as an excuse to fire him.
Imagine having your Uber driver ask what’s wrong bc you’re a grown man and crying after dropping a bag of your favorite chips on the ground and you try to make a stupid joke and he takes it too seriously and makes this tweet
But if you don’t believe it, it doesn’t exist. But if it doesn’t believe you, you don’t exist. If you don’t exist, you can’t be here to not believe it, so it still exists. But if you don’t believe it, it can’t exist so you must exist? But if you exist, and it doesn’t, then how could it not believe you? So to not believe you it must exist and therefore you can’t exist? I’ll need to run some numbers on this and get back to you both...