SJWs/Marxists and postmodernists are fundamentally at odds

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Oct 2019, 7:01 pm

So all the stuff Jordan Peterson mentions about "Postmodern Neo-Marxists" is BS. Marxism is about a grand narrative about humanity, creating a binary between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; but postmodernism says no grand narrative about humanity exists, and there is no binary like that. So the 2 are at odds. SJWs also often posit binaries, like white people and people of color, which puts them at odds with postmodernists.



I also like the way she puts Jordan Peterson's "lobster" argument, which she says can be used to justify any hierarchy or authority, no matter how just. It's a complete non-sequitur. Like, if you're an 18th century small r republican, and you're fighting against the monarchy; the monarchists could just say, well the lobsters live in hierarchies, so hierarchies are inevitable. And this will somehow justify the monarchy.

She also talks about how the West and SJWs are a lot alike, in that both are very individualist. The whole concept of everyone having their own pronoun is borne out of individualism.

All the same, she likes Peterson for a few things, like his criticism of the left suppressing even slight deviations from their orthodoxy.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

11 Oct 2019, 9:48 am

beneficii wrote:
So all the stuff Jordan Peterson mentions about "Postmodern Neo-Marxists" is BS. Marxism is about a grand narrative about humanity, creating a binary between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; but postmodernism says no grand narrative about humanity exists, and there is no binary like that. So the 2 are at odds. SJWs also often posit binaries, like white people and people of color, which puts them at odds with postmodernists.


That does not follow, and even if it did; so what? Cognitive dissonance isn't a new thing. Besides: Postmodernism started out as an art movement, and Marxism is an attempt to apply a moral framework to economics (to say nothing about Marx' long list of erroneous predictions), so the fact that rubbing them together doesn't form something that's internally consistent is hardly surprising, nor is that people do it anyway.

Not long ago, there was the first gay muslim wedding. By your logic, they either aren't gay and married, or they aren't really muslim, because Islam and homosexuality are at odds with eachother. I'd certainly have some questions about that, but I'm not sure I'd be prepared to serve them that ultimatum.


Quote:
I also like the way she puts Jordan Peterson's "lobster" argument, which she says can be used to justify any hierarchy or authority, no matter how just. It's a complete non-sequitur. Like, if you're an 18th century small r republican, and you're fighting against the monarchy; the monarchists could just say, well the lobsters live in hierarchies, so hierarchies are inevitable. And this will somehow justify the monarchy.


Complete nonsense. The entire spiel with the lobsters was that hierarchies inevitably form among social creatures, and that this is true even for creatures as primitive as lobsters, and that this is a healthy thing that helps them navigate the world. This in response to people who seem to think that all hierarchies are based on oppression, and we'd be better off just doing away with them. This then somehow churned through some pretty weird minds and came out as "JBP says we should model our society after that of the lobsters hurr durr". As for justifying the monarchy, how would that work, exactly?

"I find this authority to be illegitimate and based on unfair criteria."
"But the lobsters."
"Well, when you put it like that..."

Yeah, no.


Quote:
She also talks about how the West and SJWs are a lot alike, in that both are very individualist. The whole concept of everyone having their own pronoun is borne out of individualism.


Further nonsense. The pronoun thing serves to 1) identify which tribe you belong to and your status on the progressive stack, especially if it's one of the extra-special ones like Xe and 2) serve as a linguistic tripmine to extort compliance from people vulnerable to weaponized tolerance. [/quote]


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

11 Oct 2019, 2:51 pm

Quote:
Further nonsense. The pronoun thing serves to 1) identify which tribe you belong to and your status on the progressive stack, especially if it's one of the extra-special ones like Xe and 2) serve as a linguistic tripmine to extort compliance from people vulnerable to weaponized tolerance.


You tipped your hand with this last one. You are anti-progressive.

Quote:
Complete nonsense. The entire spiel with the lobsters was that hierarchies inevitably form among social creatures, and that this is true even for creatures as primitive as lobsters, and that this is a healthy thing that helps them navigate the world. This in response to people who seem to think that all hierarchies are based on oppression, and we'd be better off just doing away with them. This then somehow churned through some pretty weird minds and came out as "JBP says we should model our society after that of the lobsters hurr durr". As for justifying the monarchy, how would that work, exactly?


So you believe that equality is impossible to achieve, then? Do you believe that capitalism is necessary to show who are the "sharks" (i.e. who deserves lots of money and to direct resources) and who are the "minnows" (i.e. who doesn't deserve squat, because they are not very useful to society)? Do you oppose universal health care? Here in the US, this kind of hierarchical thinking is at the basis of the opposition to universal health care. Maybe it's different in Sweden.

Quote:
That does not follow, and even if it did; so what? Cognitive dissonance isn't a new thing. Besides: Postmodernism started out as an art movement, and Marxism is an attempt to apply a moral framework to economics (to say nothing about Marx' long list of erroneous predictions), so the fact that rubbing them together doesn't form something that's internally consistent is hardly surprising, nor is that people do it anyway.


The fact remains that it's incoherent. But I guess then that you think your progressive opponents are just a bunch of stupid people who don't know how to think? That's quite some projection, especially considering how a lot of conservatives believed that Obama was a gay Muslim Marxist atheist.

Quote:
Not long ago, there was the first gay muslim wedding. By your logic, they either aren't gay and married, or they aren't really muslim, because Islam and homosexuality are at odds with eachother. I'd certainly have some questions about that, but I'm not sure I'd be prepared to serve them that ultimatum.


But are they fundamentally at odds with each other? I would say that Islam is not any more so than Christianity is. Opposition to being gay is not an essential position of either religion, though both their holy books have sections that seem to oppose it. But it's not as essential as, say, Islam's position that Mohammed is God's last prophet or Christianity's that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God.

But Postmodernism at its root is about opposition to grand narratives about humanity, while Marxism and all its offshoots are about some grand struggle that stretches through all of human history. Like, at their core, the 2 are opposed to each other.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

11 Oct 2019, 4:14 pm

beneficii wrote:
You tipped your hand with this last one. You are anti-progressive.

About as much as Hitchens or Carlin:

Image


I'm a heavily left-leaning liberal-minded center-leftist severely dissapointed with the state of the left.

As for being anti-progressive; In my view a progressive is someone with a preconception of how the future ought to be and who has as their goal to hammer the present into that mold no matter what breaks in the process. I support progress, but I don't call myself a progressive.


beneficii wrote:
So you believe that equality is impossible to achieve, then? Do you believe that capitalism is necessary to show who are the "sharks" (i.e. who deserves lots of money and to direct resources) and who are the "minnows" (i.e. who doesn't deserve squat, because they are not very useful to society)? Do you oppose universal health care? Here in the US, this kind of hierarchical thinking is at the basis of the opposition to universal health care. Maybe it's different in Sweden.


I whole-heartedly support universal healthcare, and I'm very grateful for the system we have here in Sweden. But contrary to what Bernie thinks, we are not a "great socialist success" or whatever the wording was. We are very pragmatic up here, and like our economic system and our government system our healthcare system is a hybrid-system cobbled together from parts that work well rather than being drawn from any one particular ideology. I don't even think our rightwingers want to/dare touch our healthcare system.

As for equality, do you mean in the French conception of the word or the English conception of the word?


beneficii wrote:
The fact remains that it's incoherent. But I guess then that you think your progressive opponents are just a bunch of stupid people who don't know how to think? That's quite some projection, especially considering how a lot of conservatives believed that Obama was a gay Muslim Marxist atheist.


I know it's incoherent. That doesn't change the fact that there are people who alternate between Marxist rhetoric about class/race/gender/age-oppression and then launch immediately into talk about post-modern deconstructionism. And you seem to be blaming JBP for something because the people he opposes have an incoherent ideology and/or don't exist because of it?

Interesting how you project an opinion onto me and then immediately accuse me of of projecting. No, I don't particularly think progressives are stupid, I know many of them are very smart. But just as some of the really hardcore Christian fundamentalists are lawyers and engineers, I think in many cases their faculties are being overidden by other processes.


beneficii wrote:
But are they fundamentally at odds with each other? I would say that Islam is not any more so than Christianity is. Opposition to being gay is not an essential position of either religion, though both their holy books have sections that seem to oppose it. But it's not as essential as, say, Islam's position that Mohammed is God's last prophet or Christianity's that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God.

But Postmodernism at its root is about opposition to grand narratives about humanity, while Marxism and all its offshoots are about some grand struggle that stretches through all of human history. Like, at their core, the 2 are opposed to each other.


I'd suggest Islam is a bit more in touch with its roots when it comes to the treatment of gays, but I'll concede the paralell wasn't 100% overlapping, but rather just another example of cognitive dissonance to show that it isn't exactly unheard of for people to hold incoherent and/or contradictory views.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

11 Oct 2019, 4:58 pm

What were we discussing again? The fact remains that here in the US, with our history of racism, implicit bias remains a major issue that affects the livelihood of many black people:

http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research ... icit-bias/

No matter how deconstructionist you want to be, you cannot deny that. But that's not the same as positing a grand narrative of white people vs. people of color that runs through all of human history--I rarely see this rhetoric, but when I do I know it's either a nut or a troll.

You guys seem to object to even acknowledging this fact of implicit bias.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

12 Oct 2019, 5:50 am

beneficii wrote:
You guys seem to object to even acknowledging this fact of implicit bias.


Gee, I sure wonder why.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/ ... prejudice/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/u ... ger-clegg/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... s-bad-idea

https://www.city-journal.org/html/scien ... 15527.html


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

12 Oct 2019, 7:42 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
Further nonsense. The pronoun thing serves to 1) identify which tribe you belong to and your status on the progressive stack, especially if it's one of the extra-special ones like Xe and 2) serve as a linguistic tripmine to extort compliance from people vulnerable to weaponized tolerance.
[/quote]
This seems a very ungenerous interpretation, and certainly doesn't seem to have any bearing upon reality.

"I'm a man", "I'm a woman", "I'm neither of those things" - how is this "identifying your tribe" or your "status on the progressive stack"? These are just statements of fact about yourself.

As for "linguistic tripmine"... have you ever accidentally called a woman on the internet "he"? Most people have. I'm guessing she said "I'm a girl btw, it's she not he" or something along those lines. My experience of accidentally misgendering trans or non-binary people is exactly the same. If anything, non-binary people are less likely to mention it.

To be honest, the assumption that everyone who isn't cis is an abrasive, sensitive individual looking to catch you out and shriek about how they're being misgendered seems to come from a place of ignorance, and ultimately bigotry. It's pretty disheartening. Try to actually get to know some people rather than just assuming that the conservative talking points are all completely accurate. The world is a nuanced place that ideology alone cannot equip you for.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

12 Oct 2019, 8:59 am

I wouldn't be the first to express concern about your transparent bias, but I'll give you a bit of the benefit of the doubt.


The_Walrus wrote:

This seems a very ungenerous interpretation, and certainly doesn't seem to have any bearing upon reality.

"I'm a man", "I'm a woman", "I'm neither of those things" - how is this "identifying your tribe" or your "status on the progressive stack"? These are just statements of fact about yourself.[/quote]

Like I said, this primarily applies to the extra-special pronouns like xe or xer. Obviously most trans people aren't ideological, but the ones that use those are, as far as I've seen, without exception, and all within the same general ideological sphere. And what exactly is supposed to be the difference between a they, a xe, and a xer (the list is longer, but you get it) when the only definition seems to be "neither man or woman". It seems like a distinction without a difference, and forcefully insisting on their separation suggests an ulterior motive.

And they're not so much statements of facts about yourself as they're statements of how you see yourself and/or would like others to see you. How others actually see you is not something you can control.

Quote:
As for "linguistic tripmine"... have you ever accidentally called a woman on the internet "he"? Most people have. I'm guessing she said "I'm a girl btw, it's she not he" or something along those lines. My experience of accidentally misgendering trans or non-binary people is exactly the same. If anything, non-binary people are less likely to mention it.


It's not about what most people or reasonable people would do, it's about what crazy and unreasonable people are able to do.



This was followed up by favourable media coverage, complete with declaring people on the internet making fun of this insane behaviour as just hateful of trans people. Then there's the whole "misgendering is violence" thing, which is outright dangerous.


The_Walrus wrote:
To be honest, the assumption that everyone who isn't cis is an abrasive, sensitive individual looking to catch you out and shriek about how they're being misgendered seems to come from a place of ignorance, and ultimately bigotry. It's pretty disheartening. Try to actually get to know some people rather than just assuming that the conservative talking points are all completely accurate. The world is a nuanced place that ideology alone cannot equip you for.


I don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm bigoted.

There is a story, I'm pretty sure it's propaganda because I don't think it'd be effective in practice, but still. It's said that during the Cold War, the Soviet Special Forces did not have their own regiments. Instead, every Soviet unit had one or two highly trained Spetsnaz soldiers among the rank and file grunts. This meant that anyone fighting Soviet forces would have to be extremely paranoid about every enemy soldier, regardless of their actual capacity. Do you see the paralells I'm getting at?


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

12 Oct 2019, 10:56 am

Wolfram87 wrote:

Like I said, this primarily applies to the extra-special pronouns like xe or xer. Obviously most trans people aren't ideological, but the ones that use those are, as far as I've seen, without exception, and all within the same general ideological sphere. And what exactly is supposed to be the difference between a they, a xe, and a xer (the list is longer, but you get it) when the only definition seems to be "neither man or woman". It seems like a distinction without a difference, and forcefully insisting on their separation suggests an ulterior motive.

The difference between those specific terms is purely grammatical.

- "They" is a term which can be gender neutral third person singular, but can also be third person plural. It is also used to refer to an unknown person ("who does this phone belong to? they've lost it"). Some people do not like "they" being used as a singular pronoun for a variety of reasons, ranging from "it isn't grammatically correct" to "it is potentially ambiguous in certain circumstances".
- "Xe" is a gender-neutral equivalent to "he" or "she". Unlike "they", it usually wouldn't be used to refer to an unknown person.
- "Xer" is the xe equivalent of "his" or "her".

As for why there's such a proliferation - it's simply because there isn't a single standard. I think "xe" is probably the closest because it has been used in several prominent documents, but I've seen people object to it because it isn't easy to pronounce if you just see it written down, as well as because they think "they" is completely sufficient and there's no need for neo-pronouns.

What's the difference between xe, ze, ne, ve? Ultimately, the same as the difference between Frank, John, and Clements. They're not descriptive (or only minimally), they're just names.
Quote:
And they're not so much statements of facts about yourself as they're statements of how you see yourself and/or would like others to see you. How others actually see you is not something you can control.

There's certainly a degree to which you can control how others see you, but frankly it seems to me like you're getting into post-modernist territory here. For me, gender is an objective reality. Whether one passes as ones gender or not is another thing, but other people's perceptions of your gender don't actually change your gender.

Quote:
Quote:
As for "linguistic tripmine"... have you ever accidentally called a woman on the internet "he"? Most people have. I'm guessing she said "I'm a girl btw, it's she not he" or something along those lines. My experience of accidentally misgendering trans or non-binary people is exactly the same. If anything, non-binary people are less likely to mention it.


It's not about what most people or reasonable people would do, it's about what crazy and unreasonable people are able to do.

Crazy and unreasonable people can do all sorts of things, that's no reason to disrespect people's individuality en masse.

I mean, I dunno, fairly easy to find a video of a black person saying something you think is ridiculous, or behaving in an aggressive fashion. Would that nullify the case against racism?

In the specific case of the video you have posted, yes, this is an individual who needs to learn anger management. But there are people of all stripes who need to learn anger management. I think we should both acknowledge that this video cuts in midway through a conversation so we have no idea what went before it, but it does seem like the customer was being belligerent before the misgendering we see on the video. When you do it twice to someone who has not only clearly made an effort to present as a woman, but has just very loudly explained to someone else that she is a woman, you're going to cause irritation.

I once had a customer get very angry at me when I called them "madam". The reason? She wasn't married, so thought that she should be called "miss". I proceeded to call her "miss", I apologised, I explained why I called her "madam", but after I had finished helping her she complained to another staff member, then demanded to see a manager and demanded that I be disciplined when the manager showed up. Another thing that has occasionally raised heckles is when you call someone "Mr" or "Ms" and they correct you forcefully by saying "Dr". People get particular about what they want to be called. Usually they'll be happy to correct you, as you had no way of knowing, but sometimes people will go off. That doesn't undermine the principle of calling people by their proper name, title, or pronoun.

Quote:
This was followed up by favourable media coverage, complete with declaring people on the internet making fun of this insane behaviour as just hateful of trans people.

Well, some of it does seem to be hateful of trans people - check out the comment on that video, for example. Most of the comments aren't about them kicking a stand over or anything like that, they're mocking the very idea of this person being a woman.


Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
To be honest, the assumption that everyone who isn't cis is an abrasive, sensitive individual looking to catch you out and shriek about how they're being misgendered seems to come from a place of ignorance, and ultimately bigotry. It's pretty disheartening. Try to actually get to know some people rather than just assuming that the conservative talking points are all completely accurate. The world is a nuanced place that ideology alone cannot equip you for.


I don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm bigoted.

I didn't criticise you, I criticised an assumption which you have indirectly voiced. I didn't insinuate, I was direct.

I think good people often hold bigoted views. Sometimes people are going to suggest that you are bigoted. If I suggest that a view you hold is bigoted, you can either disagree with me, or you can consider whether I might be right and change your views. I don't think that holding a bigoted view makes you instantly irredeemable. But there's no right to not have your ideas challenged.

Quote:
There is a story, I'm pretty sure it's propaganda because I don't think it'd be effective in practice, but still. It's said that during the Cold War, the Soviet Special Forces did not have their own regiments. Instead, every Soviet unit had one or two highly trained Spetsnaz soldiers among the rank and file grunts. This meant that anyone fighting Soviet forces would have to be extremely paranoid about every enemy soldier, regardless of their actual capacity. Do you see the paralells I'm getting at?

I think you're essentially trying to say "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel". Am I right?

There are a few issues with that:
- Firstly, it is essentially an argument for all forms of prejudice and bigotry, even the ones you (the general "you") don't like. If 1% of the police are racist, does that justify the assumption that all police are racist? If one in seventeen men is a rapist, does that justify the assumption that all men are rapists? If the last black person you hired was rude to colleagues, should you assume that all black people are rude?
- Secondly, it is an anti-individualist mindset. It is treating people as groups, rather than individuals. It is antithetical to the principles of liberalism. It is the worst of identity politics.
- Thirdly, pragmatically it's no way to live. If you see enemies around every corner then you're not going to be happy. There may in some circumstances be times when that is necessary, but assuming the worst of everyone is not healthy.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

12 Oct 2019, 12:41 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think you're essentially trying to say "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel". Am I right?


Not quite. I can see that the analogy is a little muddled, but what I was trying to convey that people who behave like in the video make the situation worse for other trans people who just want to get on with their lives ("making the barrel worse for the other apples", as it were) and the reluctance to hold them to account for their bad actions and instead elevate them as though they are bravely standing up for themselves is not helping. Imagine what the store clerk will think next time he see's someone who might be trans. The phrase "oh no, not again!" comes to mind. It's not fair to the other person, but I can't really fault him if that's his reaction, especially if he's at risk of being guilty of a hate crime if he gets it wrong.


Quote:
As for why there's such a proliferation - it's simply because there isn't a single standard. I think "xe" is probably the closest because it has been used in several prominent documents, but I've seen people object to it because it isn't easy to pronounce if you just see it written down, as well as because they think "they" is completely sufficient and there's no need for neo-pronouns.


I would tend to agree with this.


Quote:
What's the difference between xe, ze, ne, ve? Ultimately, the same as the difference between Frank, John, and Clements. They're not descriptive (or only minimally), they're just names.


But the whole point of pronouns is that they simplify language, in part by alleviating the repeated use of names.


Quote:
There's certainly a degree to which you can control how others see you, but frankly it seems to me like you're getting into post-modernist territory here. For me, gender is an objective reality. Whether one passes as ones gender or not is another thing, but other people's perceptions of your gender don't actually change your gender.


Influence yes, control no. And while I'd agree, this position would seem to be ripe for angling one way or the other.


Quote:
Crazy and unreasonable people can do all sorts of things, that's no reason to disrespect people's individuality en masse.


Unfortunately, even the staunchest individualists whould to concede that language is a bit of a collective endeavour.


Quote:
In the specific case of the video you have posted, yes, this is an individual who needs to learn anger management. But there are people of all stripes who need to learn anger management. I think we should both acknowledge that this video cuts in midway through a conversation so we have no idea what went before it, but it does seem like the customer was being belligerent before the misgendering we see on the video. When you do it twice to someone who has not only clearly made an effort to present as a woman, but has just very loudly explained to someone else that she is a woman, you're going to cause irritation.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on the "clearly made the effort to present as a woman". A bit of make-up, a purse and a pink undershirt doesn't compensate quite enough for looking and sounding like you have the star role in a Tarzan film. I have seen a longer version that includes the initial offense, and I think it was a genuine mistake followed by repeat-offending mostly out of reflex and confusion.


Quote:
I once had a customer get very angry at me when I called them "madam". The reason? She wasn't married, so thought that she should be called "miss". I proceeded to call her "miss", I apologised, I explained why I called her "madam", but after I had finished helping her she complained to another staff member, then demanded to see a manager and demanded that I be disciplined when the manager showed up. Another thing that has occasionally raised heckles is when you call someone "Mr" or "Ms" and they correct you forcefully by saying "Dr". People get particular about what they want to be called. Usually they'll be happy to correct you, as you had no way of knowing, but sometimes people will go off. That doesn't undermine the principle of calling people by their proper name, title, or pronoun.


This confused me a little. I was under the impression that "madam/ma'am" was marriage-neutral and that "missus/mrs" was the marriage specific one. Even after googling it only about 1/3 of the pages mentioned marital status. Either way, she was being unreasonable. And I'd agree on principally adressing people properly, but I don't agree with elevating failure to do so (even repeated failure) to the status of crime.


Quote:
I don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm bigoted.

I didn't criticise you, I criticised an assumption which you have indirectly voiced. I didn't insinuate, I was direct.

I think good people often hold bigoted views. Sometimes people are going to suggest that you are bigoted. If I suggest that a view you hold is bigoted, you can either disagree with me, or you can consider whether I might be right and change your views. I don't think that holding a bigoted view makes you instantly irredeemable. But there's no right to not have your ideas challenged. [quote]

Agreed and fair enough.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

12 Oct 2019, 4:04 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I think you're essentially trying to say "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel". Am I right?


Not quite. I can see that the analogy is a little muddled, but what I was trying to convey that people who behave like in the video make the situation worse for other trans people who just want to get on with their lives ("making the barrel worse for the other apples", as it were) and the reluctance to hold them to account for their bad actions and instead elevate them as though they are bravely standing up for themselves is not helping. Imagine what the store clerk will think next time he see's someone who might be trans. The phrase "oh no, not again!" comes to mind. It's not fair to the other person, but I can't really fault him if that's his reaction, especially if he's at risk of being guilty of a hate crime if he gets it wrong.

That seems reasonable.

Quote:
Quote:
What's the difference between xe, ze, ne, ve? Ultimately, the same as the difference between Frank, John, and Clements. They're not descriptive (or only minimally), they're just names.


But the whole point of pronouns is that they simplify language, in part by alleviating the repeated use of names.
Well, sure. And neopronouns do that too. It's just English doesn't have a successful set.

(Doesn't Swedish have a successful set, or am I thinking of the wrong country?)



Quote:
Quote:
Crazy and unreasonable people can do all sorts of things, that's no reason to disrespect people's individuality en masse.


Unfortunately, even the staunchest individualists whould to concede that language is a bit of a collective endeavour.
Broadly, but if someone tells us their name then we call them by it. If someone we meet online tells us they're a "she" then we call them "she", if we remember.


Quote:
Quote:
I once had a customer get very angry at me when I called them "madam". The reason? She wasn't married, so thought that she should be called "miss". I proceeded to call her "miss", I apologised, I explained why I called her "madam", but after I had finished helping her she complained to another staff member, then demanded to see a manager and demanded that I be disciplined when the manager showed up. Another thing that has occasionally raised heckles is when you call someone "Mr" or "Ms" and they correct you forcefully by saying "Dr". People get particular about what they want to be called. Usually they'll be happy to correct you, as you had no way of knowing, but sometimes people will go off. That doesn't undermine the principle of calling people by their proper name, title, or pronoun.


This confused me a little. I was under the impression that "madam/ma'am" was marriage-neutral and that "missus/mrs" was the marriage specific one. Even after googling it only about 1/3 of the pages mentioned marital status. Either way, she was being unreasonable. And I'd agree on principally adressing people properly, but I don't agree with elevating failure to do so (even repeated failure) to the status of crime.

I agree that she was being unreasonable (and so did everyone else). However it did make me consider whether I would stop calling customers "sir" and "madam" in order to avoid similar issues in the future. I noticed that none of my female colleagues addressed people that way but didn't ask for clarification before I left.

I think if someone is being malicious with their namecalling then in some circumstances it could be appropriate for it to be a crime. If it is part of a campaign of intimidation, for example.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

13 Oct 2019, 3:38 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Well, sure. And neopronouns do that too. It's just English doesn't have a successful set.


They don't really simplify, do they? Particularly in writing.

"Jean and Alex went into town. Xe wanted to get xer hair done, and they needed a new screen for their Iphone."


Quote:
(Doesn't Swedish have a successful set, or am I thinking of the wrong country?)


You're thinking of the right country and language, though it's a set of one, and "successful" is bit of a stretch.

Gendered pronouns in Swedish are "han/honom" (he/him) and "hon/henne" (she/her). The proposed word is "hen", which is a word that exists among the large Swedish-speaking minority in Finland as their version of the Finnish "hän", which is a non-gendered pronoun. It was first proposed back in the 1960's, with a renewed push by gender-activists in 2013. It's still seen as a neologism and I don't think I've ever seen it used seriously and without an accompanying eyeroll.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.