758

Are the straights okay rule (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 weeks ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] pbbananaman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don’t think there needs to be a word that describes the negative of a condition. You just don’t need a descriptor at all. There’s no value add.

Inject vs eject? Am I being trolled here?

[-] AlataOrange@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

You're not being trolled this is literally how the English language works: https://www.google.com/search?q=eject%20etymology%20&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m

So would you propose we just say autistic people and normal people? Doesn't that seem kind of cruel and bothering?

Should we also say asexual people and normal people, or aromantic people and normal people, trans people and normal people?

Where do you draw the line?

[-] flerp@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago

autistic/non-autistic, asexual/sexual, aromantic/romantic, trans/cis

asexual and aromantic are already based on being the negative, adding another term to reverse that just makes a double negative

[-] GojuRyu@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.