Structure purist, ingredient neutral: wolves are bees.

it is quite literally named the “land of the blacks” after all that is what Egypt means

Egypt is from Greek and definitely doesn’t mean that. The Egyptian endonym was kmt (traditionally pronounced as kemet), which is interpreted as “black land” (km means “black”, -t is a nominal suffix, so it might be translated as black-ness, not at all “quite literally land of the blacks”), most likely referring to the fertile black soil around the Nile river. Trying to interpret that as “land of the blacks” should be suspicious already due to the fact people would hardly name themselves after their most ordinary physical characteristic; the Egyptians might call themselves black only if they were surrounded by non-black people and could view that as their own special characteristic, but they certainly neighboured and had contact with black peoples. And either way one has to wonder if the ancient views of white and black skin were meaningfully comparable to modern western ones. On the other hand, the fertile black soil most certainly is a differentia specifica of the settled Egyptian land that is surrounded by a desert.

More screenshots are here: https://xcancel.com/p9cker_girl/status/1844203626681794716

What I find odd is that the message that they actually left on the site has nothing to do with Palestine, just childish “lol btfo” sort of message. So I wouldn’t be surprised if these guys aren’t the ones who actually did it, and it’s merely a false flag to make pro-Palestinian protesters look like idiotic assholes.

And yet you’ve created this very Lemmy instance we’re posting on. Curious.

The actual article seems quite positive about her art. Why that title was written to sound so dismissive, I do not really understand, it’s not at all in line with the content. If her art was thought to be so irrelevant, it wouldn’t merit an article in the first place. Maybe it was meant to be positive by conveying her non-academic background and “natural”, intuitive approach to painting (I think that naïve/outsider art was already gaining some positive interest at the time).

It’s interesting that the article was written by a woman too.

Apparently the French stress the syllables equally, not just the second so it’s a minor difference.

According to what I’ve read, they do stress the final syllable of the phrase (including multiple words). To foreign ears, this is simplified into always stressing the final syllable.

I absolutely don’t trust videos such as the one you link because they’re frequently made by non-natives. I’ve personally seen a number of them using obvious non-native (English) pronunciation. Also, I’d say that particular recording has equal prominence on both syllables. But I wouldn’t take it to be representative of French either way.

https://youtu.be/__bLxInvVsM - this should be better

That’s partly what I myself tried to hint at with the question and the parenthetical remarks. Various forms have their own claims to “legitimacy”.

And the whole issue somewhat surprised me, because I never even considered that there were these different pronunciations at all. I’m not a native English speaker, and I’ve always used a more French-like pronunciation of “Godot” that is used in my native language. I expected neither the inital stress nor the -ough diphthong in English, but a more French-like pronunciation. As much as I feel comfortable in English and use it every single day, some of these quirks in pronunciation can still catch me off-guard.

“Go-dough,” like the play

“Like the play” - but where does the stress go? On the final syllable, as in French? (The play was originally written in French.) On the first syllable, as is more usual in British pronunciation of French words? (The author was Irish and apparently this is how he pronounced it - when speaking English.)

Came here to post this.

It’s visually convincing (looks like a proper old-timey newspaper article, even has a misspelling/adapted name that nobody would use today), and OP even included the context with the source and date above the pic. I’ve seen the pic before, and if it were fake, nobody would manage/bother to add the original date it was published in.

Could be so, though it doesn’t look like a site where the devs have a fixed time schedule. (Not that I know much about managing a website, just my impression.)

Nope. I actually tried using a proxy and it got rejected for that very reason (with a different message), whereas two normal IPs had the problem described in OP.

My suspicion was correct, I can’t figure it out.

I know, as I’ve said, I’ve sent them an email through that form two days ago but have still gotten no response.

No, I have no idea what that is and I suspect I won’t be able to figure it out, but I can give it a try.

I don’t get the impression there are even precise definitions of these generational labels.

And I don’t think they make any sense at all outside of USA and maybe west Europe.

So, uh, what is the difference?

To add to my other comment, I noticed I failed to address this earlier comment of yours: https://kbin.social/m/science@lemmy.ml/t/954121/-/comment/6137667

Here you do exactly what Haidt criticises, IMO entirely correctly - focusing only and exclusively on the situation in the USA. Which absolutely looks narrow and reductonist.

I’m not downplaying its existence but its wider social effects. If a society of two thousand people is racist against two members of that society, that is not likely to affect the mental health of dozens of members of the society - at most only those two who are the direct victims and those who are close to them.

What are some of those assumptions? Maybe it is reductionist, but I haven’t seen you or the Nature article present a more nuanced approach (or an approach at all). And personally this isn’t a topic that I find myself emotionally very invested in, and I’m far from an expert on sociology, so I really would be interested in learning about better approaches. Do your and the Nature article make fewer assumptions for your framing to work?

Haidt articulated his points and methods very clearly and you shifted away from them without any explanation, as far as I can see. This isn’t just disagreement within the conversation, but a disagreement on what the discussion is supposed to be about. Only now have you actually addressed what is an essental part of Haidt’s argumentation, but still very vaguely.