Magic pronouns considered harmful
-
-
Good thing you carefully chose your words to avoid offending anyone.
-
I have a preference for being considered a GOD! BOW BEFORE ME!
-
luddite
No, I think it's heteronormative or patriarchal or both, not a luddite, says the guy typing this on a computer.
-
Yeah I get that, but what is it that are you saying calls for Pinocchios?
I believe that would be the claim that "rewriting the past isn't Orwellian". Why, the Wikipedia page for the term uses the very term "manipulation of the past".
-
It still doesn't justify doing that much violence to the language.
....is redefining "they" not violence to the language?
-
We already have pronouns that solve this problem
One
One's
They
Their
ThemThey decided to change their gender. One does not always consider this kind of a problem.
-
I'm using zee/xir for the sheer ridiculousness of those words. I even mixed up the two different idiotic conventions proposed by feminist groups just to make it sound even more stupid. Sue me.
I briefly considered using "this one", but that makes the person in question seem important, so I dropped the idea.
-
Well, I'm a half-were-pony-wolf.
Where is my pronoun, you speciest furryphobe.
Phwer?
-
-
Well, I'm a half-were-pony-wolf.
Where is my pronoun, you speciest furryphobe.
"It" and "its".That's reserved for kahjeets.
Lord Vader seems to disagree.
-
Lord Vader seems to disagree.
Well, those cat people can't harness the force, and therefore can't be detected by it, and have night-eye, Lord Vader should be very afraid of the dark.
And I have console.
help "LordVador"
pid
player.placeatme 0x... 1000
tgm
-
Sweet Meteor of Death. One of the leading Republican candidates for 2016, currently battling it out with Cthulu.
I'd vote for either of them in preference to any of the real candidates.
As I understand it the basic claim was that male was considered the default gender that everybody
of valuewas assumed to be,I made a slight correction that should show you where that line of thought went wrong. Hint: male was also considered the default gender of valueless or negative-valued people (e.g. bank robbers).
-
default gender of valueless or negative-valued people
You're not following the chart
| Patriarchy | Abolishment of Patriarchy Pros | censored | Cons | | censored
-
@antiquarian said:
default gender of valueless or negative-valued people
You're not following the chart
| Patriarchy | Abolishment of Patriarchy Pros | censored | Cons | | censored ```</blockquote> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that under the paradise that will result from abolishing patriarchy, there will be no people considered to not have value? If so, that seriously conflicts with how SJWs treat members of privileged groups in practice.
-
If so, that seriously conflicts with how SJWs treat members of privileged groups in practice.
No, they're a karmic force to balance the mistreatment of everyone. We must equally shit on everyone
Once the patriarchy is abolished, they will no longer be needed, and we will be free to dump them into the sun.
-
Green Soylent can be people, as long as it is white, cisgendered, able-bodied, male, intellectuals.
-
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that under the paradise that will result from abolishing patriarchy, there will be no people considered to not have value? If so, that seriously conflicts with how SJWs treat members of privileged groups in practice.
He's saying he got friend-zoned once too often.
-
I hope I'm repeating what everyone already said a hundred times above, but the solution to the whole 'he'/'she' idiot-business is to drop 'she' entirely and use 'he' for all singular 3rd-person pronouns.
-
That's not a good solution - it resolves the problem entirely, instead of just looking like it solves anything.
-
I can guarantee that if someone proposes that as a serious solution, an army of militant feminists will rise to harvest their blood
-
I can guarantee that if someone proposes that as a serious solution, an army of militant feminists will rise to harvest their blood
Oh please. They're feminists. All they'll do is hashtag twitter.
They won't even be able to cut off their men, because they're already not having sex.
-
-
Just because someone says it's OK doesn't mean it is.
-
You're either "wrong" on quantity or gender.
"It" Singular neuter. Correct quantity and gender. End of discussion.
-
On matters of language I'd rather take advice from the Canberra Society of Editors than from somebody who is Wrong On The Internet for fun.
-
On matters of language I'd rather take advice from the Canberra Society of Editors than from somebody who is Wrong On The Internet for fun.
Fortunately for you I'm not wrong.
-
"It" Singular neuter. Correct quantity and gender.
"They" covers people who are male, female, neuter or other. If thou disputest this claim, thou art wrong.
-
"It" Singular neuter. Correct quantity and gender. End of discussion.
By using "it", you're implicitly stating that LGBTQAWTF are equal to cows. Or something. Whatever.
-
-
The order of words in sentence, for example. Unlike in Polish, you can't randomly rearrange words to get the same meaning. You have comparatively little irregularities too, and nouns don't change the suffix in seemingly random pattern (one of over a dozen different patterns, actually) due to declension.
And AFAIK it's almost never ambiguous, unlike English.
-
@flabdablet said:
Yeah I get that, but what is it that are you saying calls for Pinocchios?
I believe that would be the claim that "rewriting the past isn't Orwellian". Why, the Wikipedia page for the term uses the very term "manipulation of the past".
That was the part that I couldn't stop laughing about. The Pinocchios were about his admission that he did, in fact, father the kid, but since he apparently didn't do a good job raising them, the scare quotes are no problemo.
-
"It" Singular neuter. Correct quantity and gender. End of discussion.
And a third way to be wrong: Referring to a person as a not-person.
-
Changing a plural word to also mean "unspecified singular" just rubs me wrong.
Then I presume thou art also rubbed wrong by changing a plural word to mean "polite and respectful". Glad thou told me, I must have been offending thee by accident all this time.
After all, we do have a singular neuter pronoun. It's just that it is impolite.
-
-
Is it the singular or plural "we"?
Speakers of the English language, collectively. That's more than one person.
-
From my experience I can tell that every English speaker is speaking different English language.
-
Most of their versions include the pronoun 'it,' though.
-
But it can mean different things, just like "they" or "he" (or "equality" for that matter).
-
I haven't met anyone who speaks English and does not recognise 'it' as a singular, gender-neuter pronoun. At any rate there's certainly more than one person who does.
-
male was also considered the default gender of valueless or negative-valued people (e.g. bank robbers).
- While I mostly agree with you on this, I kind of feel like I already provided two counter-examples, right in the post you are replying to.
- Dillinger was the best-known bank robber in the world. During robberies, Dillinger would spring over the bank railing into the tellers' cage, an action that called attention to himself. You knew it was Dillinger when you saw him smile.
- Not sure if bringing up prostitutes like I did there was an anachronism. Seems like the question of whether sex-workers could be considered valuable would have been too hot an issue to touch, right in the middle of the ‘sex wars’ that were going on throughout the 70s and 80s.
- Analyzing the assumptions that people make about gender is the core of the issue (or non-issue, whatever); the pronouns that get used are just a highly-visible marker of where certain people stand.
- It's not hard, really, to word sentences in a way that avoids indeterminate pronouns altogether.
- Gender-neutral male pronouns are some double-talk bullshit that no-one should have to put up with.
-
@RaceProUK said:
I can guarantee that if someone proposes that as a serious solution, an army of militant feminists will rise to harvest their blood
Oh please. They're feminists. All they'll do is hashtag twitter.
They won't even be able to cut off their men, because they're already not having sex.
And these are the people that are oppressing you so badly all the time? You must be pretty weak then.
-
the pronouns that get used are just a highly-visible marker of where certain people stand
This would, presumably, include the 6yo kids whose priorities are- Bikes
- Climbing trees
- Eating candy
- Not getting cooties
-
I don't know why you would presume that.
-
Because you made a blanket statement that failed to take into account those who use certain words because that's what they heard used while they were growing up.
Word choice isn't always a sign of one's ideals.
-
Fuck. The original draft of that list item was a blanket statement. I went and changed it to say ‘certain people’, hoping that would clear things up.
-
While I mostly agree with you on this, I kind of feel like I already provided two counter-examples, right in the post you are replying to.
If you think counter-examples matter, you've entirely missed my point. It doesn't matter that some bank robbers were considered valuable; it matters that people in general of zero or negative value (bank robbers was just an example) were referred to as "he" if the gender was unknown. So the objection that everyone of value was assumed to be male is misguided.
-
he he he
This is a funny argument
-
And these are the people that are oppressing you so badly all the time?
I'm not oppressed. I keep using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun so I can drink in their tears. It revitalizes me.
-
This would, presumably, include the 6yo kids whose priorities are
6yo kids have good priorities.