Haha, well I don’t think a single soul apart from me bothered typing the link it so no worries. :D

Link goes to some trumpy conspiracy bullshit site?

While strictly true (calories being a measure of energy and valid for both heat and fuel potential), the difference is - unsurprisingly - small :)

Eating a large pizza (1200 kcal) straight from the freezer instead of heating it, gives you roughly 25 less kcal.

That’s Garmin’s SMS service number, not private :)

I always imagined travelling back in time 100 years and trying to explain our tech.

-“We have personal communicators available at all times, that we can use to instantly communicate with anyone on Earth.”

-“Wow! But I guess language barriers make it impossible?”

-'No, actually. A surprising amount of people in the world understand English. Also, we have instant translators in our communicators. I could contact someone in China right now and have a conversation about anything."

-“Incredible!! What sort of topics do you talk to them about?”

-“…I don’t. It’s kinda impolite to just start talking to strangers. I mostly talk to old friends from school. And my family.”

Is that a subfield of regular physics, or sex-ed?

Which country allows their citizens to openly speak about and protest said war crimes?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

No! Bad hate!

And that is the issue. Ada is bleeding to death, and Bob is giving them a rudimentary bandage to staunch the bleeding. You could:

• Let Bob do their thing, and go get an ambulance.

• Complain to Bob that this will only slow down the bleeding. What Ada needs is to be in a hospital. Keep yelling at Bob for his shitty bandage.

Who? Do you mean Detective Raphaël Ambrosius Costeau?

“We didn’t use to have mental issues back then. We had a lot of people drinking themselves to death and stuff but I fail to see any relation here.”

Aka entertainment.

It is nice to see a meme poking fun of and criticizing the “leavers” without twisting and misrepresenting their views.

Thanks. It was surprising to see it interpreted that way, especially given the context (talking about, not to, an obvious troll), but not a difficult rule to adhere to once it’s clear.

Jump scare of the day holy shit

Why are you saying that?

Just shitting on a discussion like that adds nothing.

Or if you do know the comment in question I was referring to and I missed some context that wasn’t visible in the modlog, please let me know.

Thanks again! I’m feeling a bit different about the exact lines here, but it helps me a lot to understand why and where it might hurt others.

People who take their time to respond thoughfully like you do, make online spaces much easier to navigate.

Thanks for responding! I hope you have the patience to help me understand a bit more. :)

I guess we differ on whether you can respectfully refer to someone without gendered language?

Meaning, the mistake was assuming you could be neutral, not on not knowing the requested gender.

E.g. in academia (at least in my country) we tend to talk about authors of a particular paper as “they” whether they are one, several, male, female etc, even if you know their gender. It is consided respectful, unassuming and inclusive.

Do you think it is disrespectful to e.g. say “I love my partner, they bought me legos for christmas” when talking about my spouse to a colleague even I know she’s female? Where my motivation is to not have gender in the conversation?

I am assuming it as “not adding gender to the sentence”. Neutral. Leaving it out. Not misgendering. It is how people have always talked about someone when the gender is either unknown, irrelevant, or hard to assume.

I am respecting a site or community’s rule that this is not the case on their space, but it’s such a deviation from the norm that I want it to be clear.

The qualifier “non-tolerable” was clumsy. I was trying to ask if it fell more on “honest mistake, but not allowed” or “assumed to be an intentional transphobic trangression”.