You had me pondering…yes, quotation dash: it is a thing in English, just less common!

Please disregard what I wrote before: you had it almost correct, but use quotation dashes ― as you suggested before. Some OSes offer nice character pickers for less common punctuation: for example, Windows summons it with WindowsKey-.. Apologies.

It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics

Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys

-first

-second

-third

looks obviously bad whereas

- first
- second
- third

looks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview. You also had a button in the toolbar to create a list.

I don’t think this is asking much.

If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.

I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.

It doesn’t look like a list to me

Then the - weren’t needed.

Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech

1. Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices: - SPACE list item. Even aesthetically, the plain text looks atrocious without a space there & worse when rendered.
2. The technology is fine, there was even a button in the toolbar. It’s not that hard to figure out to anyone trying: there’s a preview button & they can edit.

All anyone has to do is (1) follow regular convention or (2) use the technology. Getting this wrong despite the technology & standard convention is less a technology problem & more a user problem.

Edit: I understand what you both meant now: quotation dashes. They’re less common in English, but still correct! Edited my comment above to reflect this. Thanks.

The US authorized use of force on Al-Qaeda

Is that even needed? The War Powers Act

requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States

Congress can still be notified, and 60 days haven’t elapsed.

Edit: Nevermind. I now see unless war is declared, the president requires specific statutory authorization or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds

when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined

The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.

If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.

So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.

- Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
- Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.

Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.

Edit: Disregard. They were trying to do quotation dashes.

I’m in awe of the guys who pull their trousers entirely down at urinals when they must have seen everyone around them not doing that.

Is he plugging or unplugging? Shit’s unclear.

use meme unrelatable to someone who hasn’t watched infinity war or whatever junk
act surprised your mom is oblivious or has no patience for this shit

Still got no idea what’s going on with that “charger”: didn’t watch the movie, either. 🤷

It’s a chick: they just waddle, play with hay, and do flappies while waiting for their parents to occasionally feed them. Albatross chicks are huge.

Watch conservationists weigh & feed an underweight chick (not yet fledged, not too happy).

Or go the TikTok route and say “unsmarted” like a goddamn tool.

Like this?

That’s pretty good: could that go in the OP body or is editing not possible?

Not in the OP. For primarily text content, images of them are pretty pointless: there are links to source, quotes, etc.

So how young are the girls OP is upset about not accepting his friend request? If there’s concern that some people would refer to them as “girls” instead of “young women” the grossness of the statement stands.

I don’t know & neither do you: the words are vague as you likely know. A sensible interpretation: they’re discussing girls who could be young women & vice versa.

They didn’t say they were upset.

If there’s concern that some people would refer to them as “girls” instead of “young women” the grossness of the statement stands.

Not really, and still not answering the question: you do that an awful lot.

You’ve never encountered older women who want to be called girls or girls who want to be called women or people sensitive about their age who find the wrong word offensive? They averted that minefield.

You go on this long when people make grammatical errors like using the wrong “their” in their posts? Or is it just excusing language the dehumanizes women that gets you fired up?

You’re digressing & excusing treating females like a dirty, toxic word by nitpicking any mention of it. I’m not here (1) pretending the use of females is offensive, (2) failing to properly articulate how the problem isn’t the word when (3) we all can see the context isn’t offensive.

The question remains: what good does that advance? I understand why misogynists would want you to keep promoting their usage of that word: if everyone stigmatizes the noun female, then it becomes generally accepted as a dirty, toxic word, so yay misogyny.

Nonetheless, they’re the minority, and the common usage of noun female isn’t offensive until we change it.

Anytime someone says “can’t use females anymore, misogynists use it” instead of resisting that by reasserting the more common usage, they’re letting a minority like those misogynists take over & decide the meaning of language for the majority. (Unwitting) accomplices take capitulation a step further by policing language to promote & enforce misogynist meanings: regardless of intent, that’s you.

Language & cultural conventions take cooperation: stop cooperating with & caving to misogynists. Definitely stop actively supporting them.

If you’re going to advocate for a cause, then stop incompetently betraying it. Your cause deserves better than incompetent advocates like you. So tell us: what good is that language policing advancing?

What’s the logic there that makes it offensive?

The comment mixes women & females so it doesn’t appear fixated on a word offensively.

When discussing complete sets, it symmetrically places words of a set together: “men, women” and “married, single”.

When not discussing complete sets, only the words needed appear: they write “single young female” without “single young male”, because there was no reason to write the latter—it’s not part of the topic. The shift to females happens in a new sentence.

Again: explain the necessity for males. Are you expecting everyone to write males for no reason whenever they write females (or the reverse)? Do we need to do the same with married & single? Are you claiming incomplete sets of words or asymmetry is offensive?

That shit would be exhausting. Please explain the issue: otherwise, it looks like you’re simply picking over the noun female.

The context in OP where females was used inoffensively?

You haven’t pinned down the problem with the context of the word: I don’t think you can. All I think you have are opinions & assumptions unsupported by context.

Either the context or the word has a problem. If it’s not the context, then it’s the word, which means we’re really arguing about treating females as a dirty, toxic word.

If it is the context, then you can identify that problem (in a way that clearly sets it apart from inoffensive uses of the noun female): it’s puzzling no one has so far.

“young females” then they are sending friend requests to “young women” or “young girls”.

Nope, doesn’t follow logically. As I wrote at the link you willfully ignored, it could mean girls or young women, since they are female & they are young: I think you know that. Some word choices circumvent disagreements over words with vague distinctions: while no choice is wrong or offensive, young female is less opinionated & unlikely to clash with varied opinions on the distinction between girls & young women.

Your diversion, however, leads nowhere & doesn’t answer the question raised before.