Not to be “that guy” but I think they are mixing their metaphors here. “Biological weapon” is the comparison they’re making, not “biological war” which isn’t something I think exists,
So examples like “chemical woman”, “woman of mass destruction” work, whereas “total woman” or “guerrilla woman” do not.
Not to be “that guy” but I think they are mixing their metaphors here. “Biological weapon” is the comparison they’re making, not “biological war” which isn’t something I think exists,
So examples like “chemical woman”, “woman of mass destruction” work, whereas “total woman” or “guerrilla woman” do not.
It’s warfare. The only one that doesn’t fit is “of mass destruction”
I dunno, referring to somebody as a “total weapon” is very valid here
Ah, a shit post enjoyer of refined taste I see.
“Biological warfare” does in fact exist, and can be compared to “guerrilla warfare” and perhaps “total war” as a type of warfare as a slight stretch.
SILENCE!
I assumed it was “warfare,” and for that every example works
Warfare of attrition? Warfare of mass distruction? There are, I guess, ways to say those things properly, but these aren’t them.
I suppose I was talking about the tweet and not the response to the tweet
I was thinking “biological warfare”. Which still doesn’t fit all the references, but I’ll write it off as “artistic liberty”
Warfare of attrition? Warfare of mass distruction? There are, I guess, ways to say those things properly, but these aren’t them.
those are said by other people though
But that would imply scientific liberty, engineering liberty and, worst of all, AI slop liberty.