LupineTroubles [he/him, they/them]

This article serves the purpose of trying to preemptively deflect the possibility of comparing ICE to Israel, but rather to project against groups US and Israel fights.

I find oolong’s taste too complex and rich to be drinking too much all the time, it is less of a fixture compared to black and green tea.

Putting a gigantic dunce cap on a data center to make us feel bad about being mean to it.

Taking that much land inland is truly against the spirit of the nation of Venice.

I don’t think there is any hypocrisy between straddling Byzantium with debt and representing their misfortunes at the time like the Earthquake in Gallipoli or repeated civil wars with events so you have to react to them and navigate them within game mechanics and the game rewarding you doing exact same steps in exact same order with rewards that bypass game mechanics and give you bunch of free stuff so you can take everything easily once you survive the first few years.

Besides Byzantium is favorite country if every deus vulting GSG fan so they get the first DLC anyway above and before many other countries and regions both ascendant and troubled at this time so complaining about them specifically is silly too. We will likely see them given silly amount of momentum for recovery that they compete with Ottomans on expansion into Balkans and Anatolia soon enough.

That’s right little Byzantium you are in Ottoman country now, enjoy the earthquakes.

Would you have more fun if there were no obstacles?

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.

Sure! I didn’t because it was not a podcast about this topic specifically but just that episode. It was specifically this episode and it is available on spotify. Gist of it is that they are cutting grants, disallowing student mobility and weaponizing funding to force particular ideologies in the curriculum.

I had listened to an American professor from University of Chicago talking about the manner and magnitude of which the US government is currently outright undermining entire research of American universities in a podcast. It really sounded grim and unprecedented, for narrowest of ideological brain rot too about wokeness and Israel mainly. It is especially funny and ironic in light of all the fearmongering about how “The Left” is preventing science too.

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.

You can never forget the one who got away.

It’s well appreciated.

All politics converge ultimately at hating Turks.

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?