To assert that ‘nobody is offended by the terminology’ is to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, erroneously believing that majority opinion dictates truth. It’s a convenient but very lazy dismissal that ignores the voices of those who do feel excluded by such language.

The suggestion that discussing these issues requires more ‘real’ interaction is a classic straw man argument. It sidesteps the substance of the debate in favour of a cheap ad hominem attack. It’s a spinlessly weak attempt to undermine a valid discussion about how language evolves and impacts inclusivity.

To assert that ‘mankind’ isn’t male-centric because ‘no one perceives it that way’ is to ignore the very evidence that proves otherwise—many people do perceive it as male centric, (spend three seconds googling it ffs) this claim rests on a deeply unfounded generalisation. Furthermore, the suggestion that the introduction of ‘humankind’ retroactively imposes a male-centric view on ‘mankind’ is a form of historical revisionism. It assumes that our understanding and language cannot evolve without distorting past usage, which is plainly absurd. Language, much like our society, is in constant flux, and to deny this is to remain willfully ignorant of the dynamics that shape our communication and thought.

ill say good day to you now, as you are clearly either a misogynist or an idiot (likely a combination of the two).

Although I think you are not arguing in good faith I will once again attempt to make it crystal clear to you. The argument isn’t about what people currently understand when they read “mankind,” but rather about the subtle implications and historical context of the term. Language evolves, and the shift towards more inclusive terms like “humankind” reflects a broader recognition of equality and inclusiveness.

While many people do understand “mankind” to mean all humans, the term’s roots in a male-centric view of the world can perpetuate outdated notions. By consciously choosing language that explicitly includes everyone, we make a small but significant step towards a more inclusive society. It’s about acknowledging and respecting all members of humanity equally, without relying on language that has historically excluded or marginalised women.

I can not be more clear and “on target” to the point than this.

The terms “man” and “mankind” have historically been used to refer to humanity as a whole, but their continued use is a subtle reinforcement of a male-centric view of the world. To suggest that “mankind” encapsulates all human beings is not just an oversight; it perpetuates a narrative where men are the default and women are an afterthought. This linguistic practice not only erases the presence of women but also reinforces patriarchal structures that have long excluded them from full participation and recognition.

Language shapes our reality. When we default to male-oriented terms to describe humanity, we implicitly suggest that men are the standard against which all others are measured. This isn’t merely about semantics; it’s about recognising the inherent dignity and equality of all people. Using “humankind” or “humanity” acknowledges the full spectrum of our species, respecting the contributions and existence of everyone, not just half of the population.

The argument that such terms are convenient or traditional falls apart when we consider the power of language to shape thought. Just as we have evolved from archaic practices and beliefs, our language must evolve to reflect a more inclusive and respectful understanding of our shared human experience. In summary, clinging to “mankind” is not a mere linguistic preference; it’s a refusal to fully acknowledge and respect the equal humanity of women.

Overall I think you’re missing the point. The terms “man” and “mankind” have historically been used to refer to humanity as a whole, but their continued use is a subtle reinforcement of a male-centric view of the world. To suggest that “mankind” encapsulates all human beings is not just an oversight; it perpetuates a narrative where men are the default and women are an afterthought. This linguistic practice not only erases the presence of women but also reinforces patriarchal structures that have long excluded them from full participation and recognition.

Language shapes our reality. When we default to male-oriented terms to describe humanity, we implicitly suggest that men are the standard against which all others are measured. This isn’t merely about semantics; it’s about recognising the inherent dignity and equality of all people. Using “humankind” or “humanity” acknowledges the full spectrum of our species, respecting the contributions and existence of everyone, not just half of the population.

The argument that such terms are convenient or traditional falls apart when we consider the power of language to shape thought. Just as we have evolved from archaic practices and beliefs, our language must evolve to reflect a more inclusive and respectful understanding of our shared human experience. clinging to “mankind” is not a mere linguistic preference; it’s a refusal to fully acknowledge and respect the equal humanity of women.

The irony here is palpable: the author demands respect for the victims of historical atrocities while using language that inadvertently excludes and marginalises. Phrases like “the worst that man can do to their fellow man” and “the best that man has to offer” are not only outdated but also insensitive, as they ignore the gender inclusivity that should be a part of any respectful discourse. Furthermore, referring to the dead collectively as “men” fails to recognise the countless women and children who also suffered and perished. This linguistic insensitivity, while perhaps unintentional, detracts from the powerful message of the rant and reveals a blind spot in the call for inclusive and universal empathy.

Hes a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.

One of my all time favs

Usa drops kids off at pool, the dutch stack shelves.

It really is pretty horrific for bikes and pedestrians, no clue wtf its sooo expensive ngl.

I agree, it did try and spin it that way. But I lived in the inner west (with young kids) and safety to me on a bike seems simply impossible there.

As someone from sydney this is Sheer maddness. Sydney must be the most if not one of the most unsafe place on earth to ride a bike e or not, let alone one with unprotected small children. Sydney hates bike riders, the roads are hostile there are almost zero safe bike lanes.

Additionally you are exposing your kids to god knows how much vehicle exhaust fumes, right in their faces, sydney also has FA EV cars too.

I use it to study med. If anyone wants a fun way to memorise cancer treatments here you go. I find ai songs for study extremly useful.

https://suno.com/playlist/b0722434-83a3-45db-a874-9edff53013bc

yes but right is all evil

Why would you actively want evil?

Why did they drop singing l wonder

100% a dan

70! we would all be dead!

Won’t somebody think of the economy!

Solar panels do not have a positive CO2 footprint in the sense that they are net emitters of CO2. While the production of solar panels generates CO2 emissions, studies have shown that the overall carbon footprint of solar panels is significantly lower than that of traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources.

A life-cycle assessment of solar panels found that the carbon footprint of solar panels is approximately 20-50 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated . In contrast, the carbon footprint of coal-fired power plants is around 1,000 grams of CO2-equivalent per kWh .

Research suggests that solar panels can offset their life-cycle emissions within 2-4 years of operation, and can generate clean energy for decades beyond that . A study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that the net carbon emissions savings from solar panels can be up to 78% compared to traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources.

hardly slighty less shit id say.

References:

Fthenakis, V. M., & Kim, H. C. (2011). Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of solar panels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(8), 3521-3533.

IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Reich, N. H., & Alsema, E. A. (2017). Environmental impacts of solar energy systems. In Solar Energy Engineering (pp. 255-274). Academic Press.

Perez, M. J. R., Fthenakis, V. M., & Kim, H. C. (2019). Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and net energy analysis of solar panels. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(11), 6453-6462.