4 ms·
Kinda harsh that Julia chose to block people for what boiled down to asking genuine questions without intent to offend. Shrug, it's her choice and a valid move
by metadat 3y ago
Kinda harsh that Julia chose to block people for what boiled down to asking genuine questions without intent to offend.
Shrug, it's her choice and a valid move. But by employing the approach of "block-o-matic for all dissenters" strategy, the author has lost some credibility with me.
I also found it odd that the author cherry-picked a dictionary site which only contained the definition she found offensive. If you put "define: grope" into Google, the non-offensive definition is the first one listed:
Grope (verb) 1. to feel about or search blindly or uncertainly with the hands.
Which was why I latched onto this aspect in the first place - sexual groping has always been the minor definition in American English for at least the past 30 years. It's at least somewhat disingenuous to completely ignore this fact and focus only on the maximally offensive possibility.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+grope https://www.google.com/search?q=define+grope
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lucideer 3y agoBlocking people for "just asking questions" is fine - such questions are more often than not wolf-whistles, especially in conversations involving sexual abuse. But I did find her language in the replies odd - the level of bad faith assumed seemed inexplicable.
- wild_egg 3y ago> in American English fwiw, the author doesn't appear to be American and it's entirely possible that your minor definition is their major one