• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

Hercules56 said:
This reminds me of the whole "silence=violence" slogan. Because not joining in with protesting & yelling is just as bad as supporting that which is being protested.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-r...reatens-true-free-speech-and-public-civility/



Or so they said...
Click to expand...

Kinda reminds me of the whole cancel culture freakout, where the normal ebb and flow of the free market of ideas is suddenly bad now that certain people are finding their ideas aren't faring so hot.

There's nothing new about Universities expressing an interest in students having good, often specifically defined, moral character. Conservatives really didn't have an issue with the idea of universities taking a position on ethics until it started to include things like "racism is bad" or "don't be a reactionary pig".
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
How? You haven't said yet. I don't see any way it can be. Declarations of an imminent attempt to commit physical violence can constitute assault, and one can do that while using the "wrong" pronouns, but it's not the pronouns which would make it assault. Under what possible scenario is the use of the wrong pronouns violence?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm using a broader concept of violence. I see no reason to restrict it to assault and criminality. Football is a violent game and all that.

It's not mildly hyperbolic. It's absolute nonsense. And it's very much part and parcel of wokeness. Note also that according to that page, intentional use of the "wrong" pronouns is always an "act of oppression".

That link also makes the following declaration:

Pronouns are one of the ways we portray our identities.​

Not really. The author is confused about the purpose of pronouns and why they are gendered.

Pronouns serve as labels for communication, so that a speaker can convey the identity of third party they are talking about to a second party in a way that the second party can understand the reference, without having to use the third party's name. What is important for pronoun usage is that the first and second parties can understand who is being referred to. Pronouns should match the shared conception between the first and second parties about the identity of the third party in order for communication using pronouns to work, but none of that is dependent upon the third party's self conception. Pronouns are gendered because sex is one of the most fundamental characteristics of a person, it is correctly identifiable immediately in the vast majority of cases, and referring to someone by their sex is an incredibly concise way to help identify the third party being referred to. The purpose of gendered pronouns is not to portray your identity, but to facilitate communications between parties other than the person being referred to. Much of the time, the third party will not even be a participant in the exchange and won't even be aware of pronoun usage in reference to them.

Now, I get why people have preferred pronouns that may not match their sex. Basically, they want to be thought of as if they were that sex. And the polite thing to do when in such a person's presence is to use that person's preferred pronouns. But even when it's insulting to use the "wrong" pronouns, it's not violence, it's not oppression. If someone can tell you're not actually a different sex than your biological sex, and they don't want to refer to you as being a sex other than your actual sex, that doesn't make you a victim. It's only an insult at worst, and not necessarily even that. If you're a male walking around in jeans, a t-shirt, and a beard, making no attempt to look feminine but demanding people call you "she", it's not an insult to call you "he". It's just linguistic clarity, because that's a better identifier than "she".
Click to expand...

Roundly agreed.
 
Hercules56 said:
I've not seen any businesses or even municipalities take on the idea that "intentional misgendering of persons is a form of violence".
Click to expand...
I don't think they mean literal violence, I think they mean "linguistic violence" which is a term of art in some corners of academia. I suppose one way to find out would be to question someone who affirms the idea as to whether it counts as self-defense to meet misgendering with fisticuffs.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Maybe I'm using a broader concept of violence. I see no reason to restrict it to assault and criminality. Football is a violent game and all that.



Roundly agreed.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all agree that football, wrestling, MMA are all violent activities as they involve physical attacks upon another. They are of course legal violence but still acts of violence.

Name calling? Using the wrong pronoun?? Nothing physical about it. Therefore on its own it cannot rationally or logically be considered "violence".
 
Hercules56 said:
Yes, we all agree that football, wrestling, MMA are all violent activities as they involve physical attacks upon another. They are of course legal violence but still acts of violence.

Name calling? Using the wrong pronoun?? Nothing physical about it. Therefore on its own it cannot rationally or logically be considered "violence".
Click to expand...

If you don't acknowledge the conceps of violent words or violent speech, that's a separate discussion. Ramming the idea of violence down my throat as only meaning criminal assault (which you just contradicted) is going to result in a lot of talking past each other.
 
Thermal said:
Maybe I'm using a broader concept of violence. I see no reason to restrict it to assault and criminality. Football is a violent game and all that.
Click to expand...

The legal definition of assault stretches the definition of violence to include the threat of imminent physical violence. It doesn't merely limit it. Sure, football is violence beyond the legal definition of assault because it's consensual, but it's also quite obviously physical and it can result in injury, things that seem to be at the heart of any reasonable definition of violence.

I'm still not seeing how you get violence from wrong pronoun usage, under any circumstances. As for the academic term "linguistic violence" that d4m10n referred to, not only does that page lack the "linguistic" qualifier, I think this is a prime example of why "linguistic violence" is a bull **** term. It conflates actual violence with something that is not violence, and encourages bad arguments. No matter how narrowly defined the term might have been when it was first coined, it's going to leak out beyond that, I suspect intentionally.
 
Ziggurat said:
When you can't address an argument on its merits, try to insult the person making the argument instead.
Click to expand...

to be fair, this thread is about how important insulting others is to the free exchange of ideas on a university campus. don't see why any snowflakery by anyone in this thread should be an exception.
 
dirtywick said:
to be fair, this thread is about how important insulting others is to the free exchange of ideas on a university campus. don't see why any snowflakery by anyone in this thread should be an exception.
Click to expand...

Logical consistency needn't apply.
 
dirtywick said:
to be fair, this thread is about how important insulting others is to the free exchange of ideas on a university campus. don't see why any snowflakery by anyone in this thread should be an exception.
Click to expand...

Seems to be the ones crying "violence!!!" when someone uses the wrong pronoun, is the true snowflake.
 
Thermal said:
If you don't acknowledge the conceps of violent words or violent speech, that's a separate discussion. Ramming the idea of violence down my throat as only meaning criminal assault (which you just contradicted) is going to result in a lot of talking past each other.
Click to expand...

The only violent speech that I recognize is threats of violence. And that of course should be taken seriously if not punished.

Using the wrong pronoun can itself be an act of violence?? Hardly.

Next you'll tell me insulting the Prophet Muhammed is an act of violence, since it severely hurts someone's feelings.
 
I'm confused. This isn't in the student handbook. It's not in any bylaws or anything. It's essentially a blog post for a student group that is trying to discuss misgendering people.

At worst, it seems a well-meaning person with no actual authority made a poor choice of words in a document of no consequence.

Is that the controversey?
 
Hercules56 said:
The only violent speech that I recognize is threats of violence. And that of course should be taken seriously if not punished.
Click to expand...
Well then you go much further than I would. "Threats of violence are violence" is an incoherent sentiment.
 
Hercules56 said:
Agreed, using violence against someone because they misgender you, is not acceptable and clearly a crime.

Calling the misuse of pronouns "violence", is a step towards Socialism and Fascism. Pardon the hyperbole.
Click to expand...

That's beautiful. Really excellent work.
 
Hercules56 said:
Threats of violence get prosecuted all the time. As they should be.
Click to expand...
Did I say they weren't prosecutable? I'm pretty sure I said they aren't violence.

If threats of violence are violence, then it's impossible to threaten violence, because as soon as you do, you've committed violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom