what’s stopping me from just screenshoting
Images of text? Accessibility.
So, another sacrifice at the altar of social media to deliberately break a straightforward feature at the expense of people who need accessibility.
Social media can be such trash.
I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.
Source unclear, often attributed to Richard Feynman.
Elisp has a nice notation for maintainably composing regexes like any other programming expression.
Only language I’ve seen offer that.
So instead of "/\\*\\(?:[^*]\\|\\*[^/]\\)*\\*+/", the regular expression to match C block comments could be expressed (with inline comments)
(rx "/*" ; Initial /*
(zero-or-more
(or (not (any "*")) ; Either non-*,
(seq "*" ; or * followed by
(not (any "/"))))) ; non-/
(one-or-more "*") ; At least one star,
"/") ; and the final /
Sure you don’t need to if abuse is the only goal. It’s a weird boundary to set for abusive language specifically disparaging that quality of their identity to call out the conflict with their support for a person whose policies are hostile to that identity. Do you know insults aren’t good?
she supports a fascist, she’s an adultular, a narcissist
First, adultular? Second, that’s exactly what they’re doing & who they’re proudly supporting: restating what they’re shameless about isn’t much of an insult to the subject as it fails to demean & offend.
was on the Kardashians
Do you understand the concept of insult? They’re unkind.
We don’t misgender cisgender people when they are bad people.
We don’t? I could have sworn cisgender people do that to insult each other all the time. It’s like a classic insult.
Discussing acceptable insults, while technically possible, seems somewhat irrational. The concept of an ethical insult doesn’t make total sense.
Oh noes, the target of the insult is insulted in a way the target would not approve. It’s like the insult is meant to inflict abuse on the target. Logic circuits breaking down. What will society do?
That said, there was crazy homophobia back then.
Yes, not to understate it. Though it was a few years earlier, Matthew Shepard’s murder was prominent, and similar homophobic killings continued into the 2000s. Nightclub shootings took headlines this decade & the last, too. While parts of society seem more tolerant nowadays, regressive parts of society have hardly changed at all, so it’s hard to gauge.
That take seems a bit inaccurate.
Metrosexual meant going above & beyond in male beauty care (a pretty low bar): going to a salon to get manicures & pedicures, maybe apply foundation & eyeliner, manscaping. Possibly wearing those low-heel shoes that show the ankles without socks.
I also remember the words fag and like being ambiguous such that in written contexts I’d sometimes see the clarification good kind of fag to mean homosexual in contrast to an insult directed at someone the insulter dislikes (for being pretentious, aggravating, annoying or whatever). In speech, the distinction was often understood from tone & context, so someone could be a fag (homosexual) yet not an effing fag (detestable), and their company might be absolutely welcome for that reason. An insulter would usually pile on imagery of the subject performing homosexual acts as the recipient of such insults typically disapproves portrayals of themselves that way. The insult was a way to puncture egos & authorities claiming a traditionally masculine image. It wasn’t particularly effective against out & proud homosexuals or people who weren’t homophobic. While fag wasn’t always an insult, however, bigots & religious zealots often drew no distinction, either.
Possible, unlikely, worse. The most accessible content is native text with the full content structure of the original. Quoting without compromises & feeble games would be better.