Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The "Black Hole" of woke....

Page 30 of 38 [ 601 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 38  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

01 Sep 2022, 6:17 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Language is fluid. Societal changes can rapidly lead to new words and meanings. It’s something I embrace because I find it linguistically interesting and, quite often, necessary. New words and meanings crop up when they are needed.


I wonder how much of this is actually tied to our relationship with language.

You and I are both people might both have a subconscious motive due to appreciating that aspect of language.

If one doesn't notice or doesn't appreciate those natural processes and how they interact with social change it's harder for one to appreciate that it's obligatory and instead view it as a threat to order, even in instances where it's ultimately more of an emotional argument than a rational one.

Just to play devil's advocate to a degree, since it's an issue where people who want to resist don't really have a means to do so without eventually appearing intentionally backwards.


Good points!

Sometimes people get very caught up in the rigid outlook of their high school English classes in which everything was rules, rules, rules! I was probably like that at one point.

In college, I really enjoyed the writing of Chaucer in which the same word is often spelled differently in the same work. That opened my eyes a bit because the lack of standardization didn’t make his work any less great.

Then when I studied linguistics and other languages that turned everything upside down and made me see everything with fresh eyes.

There’s certainly a political component as well - progress/liberalism vs the status quo or the good ol’ days/conservatism.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 01 Sep 2022, 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

01 Sep 2022, 6:19 pm

Nades wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Why are some so attached to preserving a single meaning to the word “they?” I majored in English and am not that attached to specific words (except for antidisestablishmentarianism of course). Generally, I practice non-attachment with my stance towards words.

Using “they” in the singular sense can be helpful when you don’t want to disclose someone’s gender in specific scenarios.


I also use "they" in a singular sense to refer to such an individual....until I see them in person and this is where the problem is.

There is NO problem.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

01 Sep 2022, 6:21 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Language is fluid. Societal changes can rapidly lead to new words and meanings. It’s something I embrace because I find it linguistically interesting and, quite often, necessary. New words and meanings crop up when they are needed.


I wonder how much of this is actually tied to our relationship with language.

You and I are both people might both have a subconscious motive due to appreciating that aspect of language.

If one doesn't notice or doesn't appreciate those natural processes and how they interact with social change it's harder for one to appreciate that it's obligatory and instead view it as a threat to order, even in instances where it's ultimately more of an emotional argument than a rational one.

Just to play devil's advocate to a degree, since it's an issue where people who want to resist don't really have a means to do so without eventually appearing intentionally backwards.


Good points!

Sometimes people get very caught up in the rigid outlook of their high school English classes in which everything was rules, rules, rules! I was probably like that at one point.

I really enjoyed the writing of Chaucer in which the same word is often spelled differently in the same work. That opened my eyes a bit.

Then when I studied linguistics and other languages that turned everything upside down and made me see everything with fresh eyes.

There’s certainly a political component as well - progress/liberalism vs the status quo or the good ol’ days/conservatism.


Sometimes people get caught up with stuff like that that they fail to acknowledge the fact that change within the space of a mere decade of core words is always forced on others too.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder

01 Sep 2022, 6:22 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
About 100 years ago, it wasn't such an insult. It meant more like "uncanny," at times.

It also meant "weird"; whether it was an insult depended upon context.

Calling someone a "queer duck" was seen as being jocular.

It is certainly less of an insult these days than it was 50 years ago----when it usually meant "gay" (male only) both as a noun and an adjective. Lesbians were never called "queers" in the 1970s.

Nobody, these days, refers to gay men as "queers" unless one is old and ignorant.


Uncanny is also word that used to have more of a negative value loading; weird and queer are among the words connected to the general concept of being unnatural and deserving of disdain.

There's contexts where you might playfully be using weird or queer to mean eccentric, but at the other end of the spectrum there's moments where it's said with an implied wink and a nod to something more substantial with context as the only guide.

Using it as an insult for men who lack masculinity (which is how gay men were viewed) isn't too far from the other meanings when you consider how some other terms were value-loaded historically. English has long tied the notions of the supernatural, the unnatural, the unusual and non-traditional sexualities together. There's a reason why accusations of witchcraft often involved accusations of 'unnatural' sexual practices as well.

What I meant by a narrowing would be how, as the word was reclaimed at first it was gay men reclaiming it only for it to start being used to lump all sorts of non-straight and non-cis people together more broadly. As an insult it would be applied to men perceived as not gender-conforming adequately. Let's face it, if you or I was called it as a teenager the person saying it didn't care about our actual orientation or identity, they just meant to emasculate with it and they'd throw it a wide range of males who failed to meet their standards for one reason or another.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

01 Sep 2022, 6:26 pm

Quote:
Sometimes people get caught up with stuff like that that they fail to acknowledge the fact that change within the space of a mere decade of core words is always forced on others too.

Hopefully, those poor individuals will find some way to cope. :lol:

Seriously, not much has changed here. It’s a bizarre thing to worry about. “They” is still most often used as it has been for some time. Also, the other meaning is not inherently hurtful or problematic.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder

01 Sep 2022, 6:27 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Language is fluid. Societal changes can rapidly lead to new words and meanings. It’s something I embrace because I find it linguistically interesting and, quite often, necessary. New words and meanings crop up when they are needed.


I wonder how much of this is actually tied to our relationship with language.

You and I are both people might both have a subconscious motive due to appreciating that aspect of language.

If one doesn't notice or doesn't appreciate those natural processes and how they interact with social change it's harder for one to appreciate that it's obligatory and instead view it as a threat to order, even in instances where it's ultimately more of an emotional argument than a rational one.

Just to play devil's advocate to a degree, since it's an issue where people who want to resist don't really have a means to do so without eventually appearing intentionally backwards.


Good points!

Sometimes people get very caught up in the rigid outlook of their high school English classes in which everything was rules, rules, rules! I was probably like that at one point.

In college, I really enjoyed the writing of Chaucer in which the same word is often spelled differently in the same work. That opened my eyes a bit because the lack of standardization didn’t make his work any less great.

Then when I studied linguistics and other languages that turned everything upside down and made me see everything with fresh eyes.

There’s certainly a political component as well - progress/liberalism vs the status quo or the good ol’ days/conservatism.


I'm thinking this sort of topic might be a narrow microcosm, if one is prone to seeking to retain what they're familiar with in order to maintain order, that trait will likely be reflected in a bunch of areas, not just which words they feel are appropriate to use in a certain way.

Making something like this a fixation might cause some to no longer make this somewhere they have that battle, but think of how many places you'd need to fixate to overcome that tendency if it's very strong.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

01 Sep 2022, 6:28 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes people get caught up with stuff like that that they fail to acknowledge the fact that change within the space of a mere decade of core words is always forced on others too.

Hopefully, those poor individuals will find some way to cope. :lol:

Seriously, not much has changed here. It’s a bizarre thing to worry about. “They” is still most often used as it has been for some time. Also, the other meaning is not inherently hurtful or problematic.


And what if people refuse to use this sudden change in meaning? Will they be looked down upon by people like you who seem to be very keen on this change?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder

01 Sep 2022, 6:33 pm

Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Language is fluid. Societal changes can rapidly lead to new words and meanings. It’s something I embrace because I find it linguistically interesting and, quite often, necessary. New words and meanings crop up when they are needed.


I wonder how much of this is actually tied to our relationship with language.

You and I are both people might both have a subconscious motive due to appreciating that aspect of language.

If one doesn't notice or doesn't appreciate those natural processes and how they interact with social change it's harder for one to appreciate that it's obligatory and instead view it as a threat to order, even in instances where it's ultimately more of an emotional argument than a rational one.

Just to play devil's advocate to a degree, since it's an issue where people who want to resist don't really have a means to do so without eventually appearing intentionally backwards.



This is exactly the type of behaviour that explains why the trans community is seen as so controversial. They try to eloquently put into words "my way or the highway" with zero regard for others.


For starters the observation I'm making is applicable to far more than just they/their as a singular pronoun. It's really just how societies work.

If everyone says literally but means figuratively there comes a point where 'correcting' people just makes you a pedantic dick. There was a time when condescension lacked the negative connotations.

It's not a matter of "my way of the highway" so much as a matter of "read the room, this is a normal usage of this word, get over it".

All you're really being forced to acknowledge is reality, while you're demanding reality warp to acknowledge your preferences. You might as well go down to the beach and yell at the tide for coming in, you'll have a similar outcome.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Last edited by funeralxempire on 01 Sep 2022, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

01 Sep 2022, 6:33 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Language is fluid. Societal changes can rapidly lead to new words and meanings. It’s something I embrace because I find it linguistically interesting and, quite often, necessary. New words and meanings crop up when they are needed.


I wonder how much of this is actually tied to our relationship with language.

You and I are both people might both have a subconscious motive due to appreciating that aspect of language.

If one doesn't notice or doesn't appreciate those natural processes and how they interact with social change it's harder for one to appreciate that it's obligatory and instead view it as a threat to order, even in instances where it's ultimately more of an emotional argument than a rational one.

Just to play devil's advocate to a degree, since it's an issue where people who want to resist don't really have a means to do so without eventually appearing intentionally backwards.


Good points!

Sometimes people get very caught up in the rigid outlook of their high school English classes in which everything was rules, rules, rules! I was probably like that at one point.

In college, I really enjoyed the writing of Chaucer in which the same word is often spelled differently in the same work. That opened my eyes a bit because the lack of standardization didn’t make his work any less great.

Then when I studied linguistics and other languages that turned everything upside down and made me see everything with fresh eyes.

There’s certainly a political component as well - progress/liberalism vs the status quo or the good ol’ days/conservatism.


I'm thinking this sort of topic might be a narrow microcosm, if one is prone to seeking to retain what they're familiar with in order to maintain order, that trait will likely be reflected in a bunch of areas, not just which words they feel are appropriate to use in a certain way.

Making something like this a fixation might cause some to no longer make this somewhere they have that battle, but think of how many places you'd need to fixate to overcome that tendency if it's very strong.


Yeah, I think this is quite likely.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

01 Sep 2022, 6:36 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Language is fluid. Societal changes can rapidly lead to new words and meanings. It’s something I embrace because I find it linguistically interesting and, quite often, necessary. New words and meanings crop up when they are needed.


I wonder how much of this is actually tied to our relationship with language.

You and I are both people might both have a subconscious motive due to appreciating that aspect of language.

If one doesn't notice or doesn't appreciate those natural processes and how they interact with social change it's harder for one to appreciate that it's obligatory and instead view it as a threat to order, even in instances where it's ultimately more of an emotional argument than a rational one.

Just to play devil's advocate to a degree, since it's an issue where people who want to resist don't really have a means to do so without eventually appearing intentionally backwards.



This is exactly the type of behaviour that explains why the trans community is seen as so controversial. They try to eloquently put into words "my way or the highway" with zero regard for others.


For starters the observation I'm making is applicable to far more than just they/their as a singular pronoun. It's really just how societies work.

If everyone says literally but means figuratively there comes a point where 'correcting' people just makes you a pedantic dick. There was a time when condescension lacked the negative connotations.

It's not a matter of "my way of the highway" so much as a matter of "read the room, this is a normal usage of this word, get over it".

All you're really being forced to acknowledge is reality, while you're demanding reality warp to acknowledge your preferences. You might as well go down to the beach and yell at the tide for coming in, you'll have a similar outcome.


Have you actually seen the general publics distain against this type of crap though?



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

01 Sep 2022, 6:39 pm

Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Language is fluid. Societal changes can rapidly lead to new words and meanings. It’s something I embrace because I find it linguistically interesting and, quite often, necessary. New words and meanings crop up when they are needed.


I wonder how much of this is actually tied to our relationship with language.

You and I are both people might both have a subconscious motive due to appreciating that aspect of language.

If one doesn't notice or doesn't appreciate those natural processes and how they interact with social change it's harder for one to appreciate that it's obligatory and instead view it as a threat to order, even in instances where it's ultimately more of an emotional argument than a rational one.

Just to play devil's advocate to a degree, since it's an issue where people who want to resist don't really have a means to do so without eventually appearing intentionally backwards.



This is exactly the type of behaviour that explains why the trans community is seen as so controversial. They try to eloquently put into words "my way or the highway" with zero regard for others.


For starters the observation I'm making is applicable to far more than just they/their as a singular pronoun. It's really just how societies work.

If everyone says literally but means figuratively there comes a point where 'correcting' people just makes you a pedantic dick. There was a time when condescension lacked the negative connotations.

It's not a matter of "my way of the highway" so much as a matter of "read the room, this is a normal usage of this word, get over it".

All you're really being forced to acknowledge is reality, while you're demanding reality warp to acknowledge your preferences. You might as well go down to the beach and yell at the tide for coming in, you'll have a similar outcome.


Have you actually seen the general publics distain against this type of crap though?

It doesn’t matter. A large enough percentage of the population uses this meaning to make it valid. In the context of this conversation, we know what is meant by the alternate meaning of “they.”

Usage determines meaning.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder

01 Sep 2022, 6:40 pm

Nades wrote:
Have you actually seen the general publics distain against this type of crap though?


I've seen some bubbles that insist they speak for the general public. I'm pretty sure the actual general public is more apathetic than you realize.

Twilightprincess wrote:
It doesn’t matter. A large enough percentage of the population uses this meaning to make it valid. In the context of this conversation, we know what is meant by the alternate meaning of “they.”

Usage determines meaning.


Also this. Usage determines meaning and eventually the meaning that you're making a big deal out of will be normal in most circles.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

01 Sep 2022, 6:41 pm

Speaking of usage, the definition for “they” (3 d):

Quote:
used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 01 Sep 2022, 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

01 Sep 2022, 6:42 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
It doesn’t matter. A large enough percentage of the population uses this meaning to make it valid. In the context of this conversation, we know what is meant by the alternate meaning of “they.”

Usage determines meaning.


No they haven't.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

01 Sep 2022, 6:47 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
Have you actually seen the general publics distain against this type of crap though?


I've seen some bubbles that insist they speak for the general public. I'm pretty sure the actual general public is more apathetic than you realize.

Twilightprincess wrote:
It doesn’t matter. A large enough percentage of the population uses this meaning to make it valid. In the context of this conversation, we know what is meant by the alternate meaning of “they.”

Usage determines meaning.


Also this. Usage determines meaning and eventually the meaning that you're making a big deal out of will be normal in most circles.


How are you so convinced?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder

01 Sep 2022, 6:55 pm

Nades wrote:
How are you so convinced?


Because most people aren't needlessly pedantic and resistant to trivial changes.

Even among people who might be more broadly critical of some other issues related to trans people, how many of them are actually prioritizing making policing other people's usage of they/their a focus?

That's why I'm convinced, because the only way to actually exert pressure against it will involve being so intrusive that it will only encourage people to move just to spite you.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.