• 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??

gnome said:
I think it's a fallacy to say that a word "doesn't exist". Every word "didn't exist" until it came into popular usage. Some neologisms stick, some don't.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, any word gets it's first time coinage.

Permit me to opine, then, that UCB is trying to make "fetch" happen. It's not going to happen.
 
Darat said:
I think it's a good point and we should try to make as few assumptions about each other which does include their gender or sex. I also know there is no way I'm not going to make pronoun gender and sex assumptions, it's part of how I was trained and is pretty much "automatic". If I was today an 18 year old student at UC Boulder I think I probably would (as they say) try to follow the guidelines, and that wouldn't be fighting against over 50 years of assuming someone's gender or sex so would become as automatic for that 18 year old as they age as my assuming gender and sex with pronoun usage is automatic for me.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's the flip side of the coin for me. I was raised with he/she when referring to humans, and any other would be an "it", with the baggage that comes with it. I mean, pronouns are a convenience, and referring to sex knocks down on average 50% of who you are referring to.

Upthread it was pointed out that third person pronouns are never directed at the person, but only about them when talking to someone else. That's often true, but in a group of people, you often refer to a participant in the third person even though they are right there. It happened on my job site yesterday, when speculating who would win in a fight between two members, who would rip off the other's head and **** down his neck and all that. Throwing in emasculating pronouns would have just been begging for an all-out brawl.
 
Upchurch said:
And based on it never being a part of your life, it must not be true?

Argument from incredulityWP, perhaps?
Click to expand...

As is becoming repetitive, no. Any fallacious argumentation relies on the premise that X must be true/false because of unsound/illogical Y. Simply nothing that this claimed thing happened once in hoary antiquity but is no longer seen is not a justification for the reasoning; it's just a note that it doesn't pack the punch you imply.

You could just as easily (and equally erroneously) have claimed an argument from popularity. That would also have been wrong, because Herc does not rely on it as an argument.

Being "The Fallacy Guy" often backfires because the Fallacy Guy forgets that justification is the important element.
 
Thermal said:
As is becoming repetitive, no. Any fallacious argumentation relies on the premise that X must be true/false because of unsound/illogical Y. Simply nothing that this claimed thing happened once in hoary antiquity but is no longer seen is not a justification for the reasoning; it's just a note that it doesn't pack the punch you imply.
Click to expand...

But that isn’t what Hercules56 did. Dispute given a source, which he ignored, his argument was to imply it wasn’t true because he, personally, had never witnessed it. That is textbook argument from incredulity.

Unless, Hercules56 would like to try again clarify?
 
Upchurch said:
But that isn’t what Hercules56 did. Dispute given a source, which he ignored, his argument was to imply it wasn’t true because he, personally, had never witnessed it. That is textbook argument from incredulity.

Unless, Hercules56 would like to try again clarify?
Click to expand...

Since we are talking about contemporary adoption, seems like clean pool to humorously point out that the cited use is in fact not in continuing use, which doesn't exactly take a linguistic survey to prove. He doesn't dispute that the centuries old usage was attempted; he implies it was ineffectual, which it was.
 
Thermal said:
Since we are talking about contemporary adoption, seems like clean pool to humorously point out that the cited use is in fact not in continuing use, which doesn't exactly take a linguistic survey to prove. He doesn't dispute that the centuries old usage was attempted; he implies it was ineffectual, which it was.
Click to expand...

Ineffectual? Then what are you complaining about?

It seems to me that you and Hercules56 are arguing it is being very effective and will force you to say words you don't want to say. If that isn't the case, what are you arguing?
 
Upchurch said:
Ineffectual? Then what are you complaining about?

It seems to me that you and Hercules56 are arguing it is being very effective and will force you to say words you don't want to say. If that isn't the case, what are you arguing?
Click to expand...

I do believe you forgot to read pages of postings.

Also (and apologies to other thread readers for stating the obvious), Hercules56 and yours truly are different posters arguing different points of view. You can tell because at the beginning of the thread we were highly adversarial, and continue to differ on major points.
 
Thermal said:
I do believe you forgot to read pages of postings.

Also (and apologies to other thread readers for stating the obvious), Hercules56 and yours truly are different posters arguing different points of view. You can tell because at the beginning of the thread we were highly adversarial, and continue to differ on major points.
Click to expand...

Well, you were speaking for Hercules56, but you also made the claim, yourself, that it was ineffectual. I assumed you were on the same page.

As a reminder:
Thermal said:
Since we are talking about contemporary adoption, seems like clean pool to humorously point out that the cited use is in fact not in continuing use, which doesn't exactly take a linguistic survey to prove. He doesn't dispute that the centuries old usage was attempted; he implies it was ineffectual, which it was.
Click to expand...

But, okay, do you find the effort to make preferred pronouns ineffectual, as you claimed above, or is it a a very effectual attempt to make you say words you don't want to say?
 
Upchurch said:
Well, you were speaking for Hercules56, but you also made the claim, yourself, that it was ineffectual. I assumed you were on the same page.

As a reminder:


But, okay, do you find the effort to make preferred pronouns ineffectual, as you claimed above, or is it a a very effectual attempt to make you say words you don't want to say?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You forgot the last dozen posts or so.

You argued that neopronouns go back to hoary antiquity. Herc noted that they had no staying power, and seemed to be pretty much ignored, and were consequently irrelevant (my interpretation). You countered by being the Fallacy Guy, which I took issue with. This sidebar had little to do with the OP.

As far as what I think of making up words that serve no purpose, I find that stupid, although popular with a certain demographic. Not the demographic they purport to be allied with, so much as the allies trying their damnedest to be super supportive. My opinion is that they are making a joke out of otherwise good intentions.
 
I almost want to go to a college campus and randomly ask students on video "hi, what's your name?".

See how many of them declare their name AND their preferred pronoun.
 
Thermal said:
Oh, I see. You forgot the last dozen posts or so.
Click to expand...
I remember. You're just contradicting yourself and then blaming others for it, apparently. I'm just asking for clarification.

Thermal said:
Herc noted that they had no staying power, and seemed to be pretty much ignored, and were consequently irrelevant (my interpretation).
Click to expand...
Hercules56 has made many claims but supports very few of them. He also has a tendency to cherry pick his own sources, ignoring where they prove him wrong, as well as ignoring all the counter examples that also prove him wrong. If you perceive he is being ignored, perhaps you're just missing that he lost any benefit of the doubt as a good faith participant in the discussion.

Thermal said:
As far as what I think of making up words that serve no purpose, I find that stupid, although popular with a certain demographic. Not the demographic they purport to be allied with, so much as the allies trying their damnedest to be super supportive.
Click to expand...
Okay, you do not find the effort to be effectual, but you do find it effectual enough be a problem or concern, right?

Also, what demographic do you think that is and do you have a source to support that preferred pronouns are not popular with that demographic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom