887
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 years ago

Oh boy, I can't even imagine... just parking in the street and suddenly: surprise gangbang on your hood

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

A Vivid scene you describe.

[-] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If you're serious, there are two different uses of the term.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gangbanger

  1. (US, slang) A member of a violent gang; a violent person.

  2. (vulgar, sex) Someone who takes part in a gangbang.

[-] velvetThunder@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 years ago

I am a member of a violent gangbang.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 years ago

Yes but do you bang gangs, or bang at other gangs?

[-] set_secret@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Weird the US slang version comes before the actual definition. Someone needs to edit that Wikipedia article.

Every other dictionary (Including US ones)

gangbang /găng′băng″/

noun

  1. Sexual intercourse forced upon one person by several others in rapid succession.
  2. Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.
  3. Sexual intercourse involving more than two persons, especially with a high proportion of men.
  4. A street gang attacking random people on the streets and/or committing gang crimes.

intransitive verb

  1. To participate in a gangbang, either consensually or as an aggressor.
  2. To participate in violent gang-related activities.
  3. To subject (someone) to a gangbang.
[-] force@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Whether a term is characteristic of a certain dialect or region isn't generally considered all that much when it comes to order on Wiktionary, unless it's an "obscure" dialect. I contribute a lot to Wiktionary (mainly for languages other than Modern English though) and there are few rules on the specific the order of definitions, it's mostly just common definitions above uncommon definitions (but this isn't even a hard rule).

Editing it to change the order for your reason specifically might be considered vandalism, as it's typical and allowed for entries to be like this and it's common for little disputes like that to cause editing wars (although that's admittedly far more common on Wikipedia, since many Wiktionary contributors are actually linguists and are less controversial).

That being said, someone actually did intentionally move the "gang member" definition above the other one, so there's clearly some sort of difference in opinion.

If you want it changed, the course of action you should take is starting a discussion about it. It's a good way to get a community consensus.

[-] set_secret@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago
[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago

So let’s be clear here. You’re implying very heavily. Are you actually claiming that this person did this nefarious thing? What are you saying?

[-] force@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No, not at all. You can easily view the edit history of all Wiktionary pages – 2 years ago, someone put the definitions in the order they are now for a specific reason. This person thinks it should be the other way around, so if they want to change it it'd be best to make a discussion about it. That's the best way to get a community consensus on it. Wiktionary is a collaborative effort, people have different opinions on the specifics of a page, that's why discussions exist and are the go-to for settling differences in views.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Your entire comment reads like a subtle lecture to set_secret about the pitfalls of editing Wiktionary to support his argument in this thread. I think you did that on purpose, because you figured people would interpret it as what it seems to imply.

[-] force@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What are you talking about, I didn't imply anything I outright said what I meant

[-] john89@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's really sad watching you people make light of a serious topic.

I guess it's because you can't tolerate any criticism of cities, even if they house most of the people who own guns illegally and use them on other humans.

But it's not front-page news on these websites whenever someone dies due to gang violence, because it happens every day.

[-] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

Yeah same thing comes up whenever high density housing is mentioned, you're not allowed to mention how horrible it is because everyone is locked into an ideology where poor people belong in very small compressed areas because then we'll be forced to ride bikes which is going to magically solve everything

this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
887 points (98.8% liked)

News

36471 readers
484 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS