Split Thread Pronouns

[arthwollipot]

Yes, I did. Intentionally. But I don't claim to be "progressive", nor to support other people's pronouns. I practice exactly what I preach, and if anyone thinks I'm a bastard, well, clue is in the name; glad they noticed. You practice the opposite of what you've spent years preaching.

You can join and confess that you're as big a bastard as I am (tall order)... or not. I can't stop you from being a hypocrite. BUT... one or the other. You don't get to pose as supporting one thing for virtue points while consistently doing the opposite, and think nobody notices.

The difference between you and me is that I try not to be a bastard. I don't always succeed, but I hold that the state of not being a bastard is a better state than the state of being a bastard, and it is a state to be strived for. Thus, whenever I can, I practice the act of not being a bastard. It feels better and leads to better outcomes.

Furthermore, I hold that the state of assuming everybody else is already a bastard is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe everyone around you is a bastard, then you can justify yourself being a bastard to them, and that makes them think that you are a bastard and act accordingly. I, on the other hand, do not assume that everybody is a bastard, which means that when someone engages in bastardry towards me, it stands out more.

Additionally, I hold that the best way to deal with someone else's bastardry is to be as nice as possible towards them, until that becomes impossible. It throws their bastardry into sharp relief, illustrating to observers exactly how much of a bastard the person is, and hopefully making the bastard think a little about their bastardry and perhaps, if we're lucky, decide not to be so much of a bastard next time.

And thus does the world become a better place for everyone.

I respect peoples' pronouns because I don't want to be a bastard about it. I apologised for misgendering Emily's Cat and asked what pronouns they would like me to use. They have yet to reply, so for the moment I will use the gender neutral one, because I don't want to be a bastard.

However, I acknowledge that I am fallible and can sometimes be a bastard, despite my best efforts. Emily's Cat has done me the great courtesy of pointing out a few times in the past where I have been a bastard and while, as I said, I stand by every word and do not withdraw a single thing, I acknowledge that I should have been less of a bastard about it.

Congratulations. You made the thread all about me.

 

[Ziggurat]

The difference between you and me is that I try not to be a bastard.

That may we’ll be the case. But you’re still being hypocritical about pronouns. EC wants you to use gender neutral pronouns in reference to EC. According to your own standards, you should. And that shouldn’t depend in any way on whether or not SpuriusMaximus does.

 

[arthwollipot]

That may we’ll be the case. But you’re still being hypocritical about pronouns. EC wants you to use gender neutral pronouns in reference to EC. According to your own standards, you should. And that shouldn’t depend in any way on whether or not SpuriusMaximus does.

I have apologised to Emily's Cat and asked them what pronouns they would like me to use. If they are happy for me to continue to use the gender-neutral pronoun, I will continue to do so. Because it costs me nothing. It's literally the least I can do.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

The difference between you and me is that I try not to be a bastard.

Who said anything about TRYING? It's a natural talent. A gift, even

I have apologised to Emily's Cat and asked them what pronouns they would like me to use. If they are happy for me to continue to use the gender-neutral pronoun, I will continue to do so. Because it costs me nothing. It's literally the least I can do.

And she's told you so for years at this point, and you've ignored it, same as me.

But seriously, the difference is just that that I accept that I am... err.. shall we say... a hole in the butt, and don't virtue-signal being the opposite.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

You can talk about someone in their presence. For example, we are now talking about Emily's Cat. She can read what we are saying.

Yes, hence why I mentioned this forum as an example where that might happen. But again this is a form of communication that will rarely happen in a professional or personal setting.

At least, when I talk about someone when that person is present I would still use you and then look at the person. Things like: "I'll bring the chips, you bring the cake and EC, can you bring the drinks?"
And in most professional settings I've worked in the same happens in email chains where the persons being talked about are included.
Only when talking about someone to another when the person being talked about is not part of the conversation do pronouns really crop up.

 

[arthwollipot]

At least, when I talk about someone when that person is present I would still use you and then look at the person. Things like: "I'll bring the chips, you bring the cake and EC, can you bring the drinks?"

I bet you ten internet bucks that some time in the future you'll find yourself using someone's pronoun while in their presence and you'll remember this.

And she's told you so for years at this point, and you've ignored it, same as me.

I recently cleared my ignore list for a specific purpose and there's no reason whatsoever for me to be telling you this now.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I bet you ten internet bucks that some time in the future you'll find yourself using someone's pronoun while in their presence and you'll remember this.

I might. Or I might not. It's not like I have a policy to never use someone's preferred pronouns. I just don't care. I'm only saying that if not, I won't try to compensate by virtue signalling the other, and thinking it's some kind of absolution. Doing X is not cancelled by being vocal against X. It just makes it textbook hypocrisy. That's all.

I recently cleared my ignore list for a specific purpose and there's no reason whatsoever for me to be telling you this now.

Not sure what that was supposed to be, except a textbook equivocation fallacy. Just because "ignore" someone on a forum uses the same verb as "ignore" someone's request, doesn't make them the same. You're just equivocating between two very different meanings of the same spelled word. One can ignore her requests without having her on the forum's ignore list, or technically even viceversa.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, hence why I mentioned this forum as an example where that might happen. But again this is a form of communication that will rarely happen in a professional or personal setting

Happens on the daily for me, doing logistics for construction management. We'll have a bunch of us going over how we are going about our different responsibilities, and I'm handling the interface details between the trades. A couple of the guys will drop to a passive/inactive role while they wait for the final resolution, while I'm fighting with some ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that can't handle his job. So the other guys are not being addressed in the second person, but the third. IE: "Look, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, Johnny over here is going to cut out the framing in the way, and you need to get in there while he has it open so he can close it back up quickly. He can't keep it open for long, so we have to get you here while that's happening". Johnny is not really involved in the discussion, but is waiting for me to tell him when to do his part, while I am trying to convince the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that he needs to do during a short window, no matter what the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thinks would be more convenient for him.

This was a typical work discussion from about a half hour ago, btw. It's a regular thing, and I imagine it would be so in a lot of work settings.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Happens on the daily for me, doing logistics for construction management. We'll have a bunch of us going over how we are going about our different responsibilities, and I'm handling the interface details between the trades. A couple of the guys will drop to a passive/inactive role while they wait for the final resolution, while I'm fighting with some ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that can't handle his job. So the other guys are not being addressed in the second person, but the third. IE: "Look, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, Johnny over here is going to cut out the framing in the way, and you need to get in there while he has it open so he can close it back up quickly. He can't keep it open for long, so we have to get you here while that's happening". Johnny is not really involved in the discussion, but is waiting for me to tell him when to do his part, while I am trying to convince the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that he needs to do during a short window, no matter what the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thinks would be more convenient for him.

This was a typical work discussion from about a half hour ago, btw. It's a regular thing, and I imagine it would be so in a lot of work settings.

Fair enough, it might also be an habit I've falling into, tend not to have group discussions that much and for some reason then tend to directly address someone rather than chose your method. Still, in a job situation I'd follow employer directions first, and in the absence of those, the preference of those I talk to/about second.

 

[Thermal]

Fair enough, it might also be an habit I've falling into, tend not to have group discussions that much and for some reason then tend to directly address someone rather than chose your method.

Yeah, thats why these discussions are cool, we get different POVs that we might not have considered from our personal experience.

Still, in a job situation I'd follow employer directions first, and in the absence of those, the preference of those I talk to/about second.

Total sidebar, but in residential construction, we often don't have a rigid chain of command. It's often more like everyone working together and providing their own expertise so that we all get the job done, have a satisfied customer, and everyone gets paid, working smoothly. The lowest guy on the totem pole will be listened to as much as El Jefe. You never know who's going to have just the right insight to solve a problem. The guy doing the conducting (in this example, me) has to be open to that, and not be an arrogant ass who won't listen to anyone else.

 

[Thermal]

Who said anything about TRYING? It's a natural talent. A gift, even


And she's told you so for years at this point, and you've ignored it, same as me.

Did she though? I remember her doing this for years, and she never said to me (or anyone else that I recall) that she wanted the neutral applied to her; she explained why she used it herself, as a reaction to what she perceived as an unfair forum standard. Although recently she contradicted that ITT and said pronouns were never an issue, but that's a bit off to the side I guess.

But seriously, the difference is just that that I accept that I am... err.. shall we say... a hole in the butt, and don't virtue-signal being the opposite.

Yeah but is being said orifice a choice? I think a given person might have an inclination, but whether they embrace it or try to fix it is a seperate matter. Like, you might need to pass gas in mixed company, but whether you choose do so is a reflection on how much of an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ you choose to be.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yeah but is being said orifice a choice?

Maybe or maybe not. Some people were born and raised that way, some had a genetic advantage, while others had to work hard to overcome everything and get there. But applying the same standards to oneself as to others is still a choice each one of us has to make.

 

[Thermal]

Maybe or maybe not. Some people were born and raised that way, some had a genetic advantage, while others had to work had to overcome and get there. But applying the same standards to oneself as to others is still a choice each one of us has to make.

Relevant, in a NSFW ditty:

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Dennis Leary is my favourite... err... hole in the butt role-model. It's him who made me realise I was one, and coming from a long and proud line of such.

And may the mods have mercy on my soul for posting it.