Mastodawn

Fetterman hit with brutal 108-point polling swing: ‘He is below the lowest of the low’

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/65802586

Fetterman hit with brutal 108-point polling swing: ‘He is below the lowest of the low’ - Divisions by zero

> The polling showed that Fetterman was at +68 with Democrats in Pennsylvania back in 2023. > > “He was a Democrat liberal darling,” Enten said. > > That is no longer the case. > > “Look at how low he has fallen, down to negative 40 points,” Enten said showing the new data. “He’s down there with the Titanic among Democrats in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Show thread

fakero Mar 22

Congressmen (and women) should have a 2 year term limit max. Six years of doing whatever the hell he wants with no regard for his constituents is insane.

Show thread

givesomefucks Mar 22

Congressmen (and women)

Pedantic and off topic, but it would have been a shit ton easier if we just ate a masculine prefix and leave “man” as a gender neutral one.

Something extra douchey like “heman/hemen”, so that all the douches would eagerly use it.

And everyone can just go back to using “man” as a gender neutral option like most languages were built around.

So we could say “Congressmen” to describe humans in Congress.

Like, what are you even suggesting?

Congresswomen? “Congress women”? “Women who are in Congress”?

Do you understand why none of those make sense?

It’s because “congressmen” is already gender neutral.

“Mankind” literally includes everyone. Women, men, nonbinary, furries, saxophone players, your mother-in-law, literally every human

Why are you so hung up on genitals, that you insist they be brought up at every moment? How do you care enough to put that effort in, but never actually got pedantic enough to see what was correct?

Show thread

phutatorius

In Anglo-Saxon, “man” meant “person,” like Mensch in German still does.

“Woman” was “wyfman”-- female-human-person. And because sexism has ancient roots, the default gender assumption for a person was that they were male.

So it’s not quite as straightforward as you propose, and the gender-neutrality you mention wasn’t really all that wonderfully gender-neutral after all.

So how about this, based more on modern usage: “person” for a person, regardless of what their gender might be.

“Man” for those of male gender, however that gets socially assigned.

“Woman” for those of female gender, likewise.

And for all the edge and corner cases that make our world so richly diverse, well, we’ll need to figure those out too, hopefully without being oppressive about it.