Author Topic: Episode #700  (Read 25614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2893
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #510 on: February 16, 2019, 02:29:36 PM »
Writing books using a male (or at least gender neutral) pseudonym is not being transgender. Not even close.

It is sad that female authors and/or their publishers feel it will sell more books.

^This.

Concealing your gender in order to get a job or sell your works is not being transgender. A transgender person is someone whose gender is other than the one normally identified with the physiology they were born with. And while some transgender people feel that they are male or female (and may choose to use “he” or “she” pronouns) others feel they are neither male nor female, and for them both “he” and “she” pronouns are offensive and hurtful.

What you (Bachfiend) are saying is that you will respect the wishes of the first group, but will not respect the wishes of the second group because that would offend your sense of grammatical correctness. A sense rooted in a specific time period, which is slipping into the past and being replaced by a new grammar for the present time period, likely to continue for a generation until it, too, becomes archaic and is replaced.

This argument really, really illustrates Parkinson’s corollary to Parkinson’s law (I’m going to assume he really did state it) - that the time spent on an argument is in indirect proportion to its importance.

I don’t doubt that transgender and non-binary gender persons have it tough with lack of official recognition, lack of toilet facilities, bullying, ridiculing by peers and others, mobbing...  and not having people use their preferred pronouns, which varies from transgender and non-binary gender person to transgender and non-binary gender person.

Of all the problems they face, the choice of pronoun is very, very minor.  But progressives have apparently decided to make this very, very minor problem their sole concern, instead of addressing the major problems.

I’ll ask again.  If I’m hypothetically asked to use ‘they,’ and I hypothetically decline to use any pronoun, using some other formulation, where’s the problem?  If a hypothetical John Smith asks me to use ‘they,’ and I hypothetically just repeat John Smith’s same when hypothetically necessary, where’s the problem?  I don’t like ‘they’ as a singular pronoun, because it’s often ambiguous.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2893
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #511 on: February 16, 2019, 02:45:00 PM »
Sure enough, there’s an article on page 4 of this morning’s ‘Sunday Age’:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/young-libs-accuse-party-vice-president-of-malicious-behaviour-20190216-p50y98.html

Not a mention of whether she’s being alleged using the ‘wrong’ 3rd person singular pronoun.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10116
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #512 on: February 16, 2019, 02:49:12 PM »
I think you meant inverse proportion rather than indirect proportion. The less important a subject, the more time will be spent arguing it. However, some important subjects get a lot of discussion, and some unimportant subjects are quickly put to bed. So Parkinson’s law/corollary/whatever is more a vague “sometimes” than a law.

As for the ambiguity of “they,” language is chock-full of ambiguities. Personally, I’d see nothing too wrong with your suggestion of avoiding personal pronouns altogether, until someone realizes that you are treating them differently than you’re treating everyone else, and it begins to look as though you are uncomfortable with or in denial of their gender identity.

Personally, I share your feelings about using “they” as a singular, but I just don’t think it’s important enough to make a fuss over if it ends up shitting on people who are already being shit on and driven to suicide by people insisting they must be one of two genders, as established on their birth certificate.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2893
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #513 on: February 16, 2019, 03:27:44 PM »
I think you meant inverse proportion rather than indirect proportion. The less important a subject, the more time will be spent arguing it. However, some important subjects get a lot of discussion, and some unimportant subjects are quickly put to bed. So Parkinson’s law/corollary/whatever is more a vague “sometimes” than a law.

As for the ambiguity of “they,” language is chock-full of ambiguities. Personally, I’d see nothing too wrong with your suggestion of avoiding personal pronouns altogether, until someone realizes that you are treating them differently than you’re treating everyone else, and it begins to look as though you are uncomfortable with or in denial of their gender identity.

Personally, I share your feelings about using “they” as a singular, but I just don’t think it’s important enough to make a fuss over if it ends up shitting on people who are already being shit on and driven to suicide by people insisting they must be one of two genders, as established on their birth certificate.

I take your point about ‘indirect.’  I did mean ‘inverse.’  ‘The exception proves the rule.’  What that means, is that all laws and rules have exceptions.  The existence of exceptions means that there’s a general rule or law applying in most circumstances.

Very, very minor problems get overdiscussed when people have strong, often irrational feelings about them.

I really can’t see that the very, very minor distress of my hypothetically not using any pronoun referring to a hypothetical person when hypothetically asked to use ‘they’ is going to drive that person to suicide, when that hypothetical person is hypothetically submitted to much worse injuries, which none of the progressives here have chosen to mention or address.

Pronouns are just an easy sop to conscience.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online Tassie Dave

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2822
  • Go Tiges
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #514 on: February 16, 2019, 03:28:02 PM »
Sure enough, there’s an article on page 4 of this morning’s ‘Sunday Age’:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/young-libs-accuse-party-vice-president-of-malicious-behaviour-20190216-p50y98.html

Not a mention of whether she’s being alleged using the ‘wrong’ 3rd person singular pronoun.

One of the Liberals acting like an "holier than thou" asshat. Nooooooooo, I'm totally shocked :: Sarcasm ::   ::)


Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2893
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #515 on: February 16, 2019, 04:27:57 PM »
Sure enough, there’s an article on page 4 of this morning’s ‘Sunday Age’:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/young-libs-accuse-party-vice-president-of-malicious-behaviour-20190216-p50y98.html

Not a mention of whether she’s being alleged using the ‘wrong’ 3rd person singular pronoun.

One of the Liberals acting like an "holier than thou" asshat. Nooooooooo, I'm totally shocked :: Sarcasm ::   ::)

To return to something that’s very, very important:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/every-afl-list-rated-and-premiers-west-coast-are-seventh-20190215-p50y21.html

The Melbourne Age is completely delusional and has Richmond finishing top of the ladder at the end of the 2019 home and away season, ahead of Melbourne.  And my Eagles finishing 7th.  Which I don’t mind.  It would be the season I was expecting them to have in 2018.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online Tassie Dave

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2822
  • Go Tiges
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #516 on: February 16, 2019, 05:04:10 PM »
Sure enough, there’s an article on page 4 of this morning’s ‘Sunday Age’:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/young-libs-accuse-party-vice-president-of-malicious-behaviour-20190216-p50y98.html

Not a mention of whether she’s being alleged using the ‘wrong’ 3rd person singular pronoun.

One of the Liberals acting like an "holier than thou" asshat. Nooooooooo, I'm totally shocked :: Sarcasm ::   ::)

To return to something that’s very, very important:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/every-afl-list-rated-and-premiers-west-coast-are-seventh-20190215-p50y21.html

The Melbourne Age is completely delusional and has Richmond finishing top of the ladder at the end of the 2019 home and away season, ahead of Melbourne.  And my Eagles finishing 7th.  Which I don’t mind.  It would be the season I was expecting them to have in 2018.

I agree with most of their assessments (Especially the Tigers on top  8) ), If Lynch can get over his injury we will effectively have the best offense, best mid-field and best defense in the AFL. Hard to argue them not being the best side being top in all 3 zones. We don't have the best ruck combination, but that is the least important position on the ground.

I don't think Essendon or Hawthorn will make the finals. I do think Geelong and possibly North Melbourne will.

I not only think God Coast will finish last, but will fail to win a game for the whole H&A season. Which has never happened in my lifetime.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10116
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #517 on: February 16, 2019, 06:06:04 PM »
I think you meant inverse proportion rather than indirect proportion. The less important a subject, the more time will be spent arguing it. However, some important subjects get a lot of discussion, and some unimportant subjects are quickly put to bed. So Parkinson’s law/corollary/whatever is more a vague “sometimes” than a law.

As for the ambiguity of “they,” language is chock-full of ambiguities. Personally, I’d see nothing too wrong with your suggestion of avoiding personal pronouns altogether, until someone realizes that you are treating them differently than you’re treating everyone else, and it begins to look as though you are uncomfortable with or in denial of their gender identity.

Personally, I share your feelings about using “they” as a singular, but I just don’t think it’s important enough to make a fuss over if it ends up shitting on people who are already being shit on and driven to suicide by people insisting they must be one of two genders, as established on their birth certificate.

I take your point about ‘indirect.’  I did mean ‘inverse.’  ‘The exception proves the rule.’  What that means, is that all laws and rules have exceptions.  The existence of exceptions means that there’s a general rule or law applying in most circumstances.

Very, very minor problems get overdiscussed when people have strong, often irrational feelings about them.

I really can’t see that the very, very minor distress of my hypothetically not using any pronoun referring to a hypothetical person when hypothetically asked to use ‘they’ is going to drive that person to suicide, when that hypothetical person is hypothetically submitted to much worse injuries, which none of the progressives here have chosen to mention or address.

Pronouns are just an easy sop to conscience.

An example of how languages change: “The exception proves the rule” comes from an archaic saying, from a time when “to prove” meant “to test,” and not “to establish that <something> is correct.”

The way it is commonly used today is nonsense. An exception does not demonstrate that the rule is correct. An exception tests the rule. And in this case, the exceptions demonstrate that the rule is not correct. I will assert that there is no correlation between the length of a discussion and the importance of the topic. Rather, on the internet, any random topic is liable to generate unending argument.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2893
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #518 on: February 16, 2019, 07:25:44 PM »
I think you meant inverse proportion rather than indirect proportion. The less important a subject, the more time will be spent arguing it. However, some important subjects get a lot of discussion, and some unimportant subjects are quickly put to bed. So Parkinson’s law/corollary/whatever is more a vague “sometimes” than a law.

As for the ambiguity of “they,” language is chock-full of ambiguities. Personally, I’d see nothing too wrong with your suggestion of avoiding personal pronouns altogether, until someone realizes that you are treating them differently than you’re treating everyone else, and it begins to look as though you are uncomfortable with or in denial of their gender identity.

Personally, I share your feelings about using “they” as a singular, but I just don’t think it’s important enough to make a fuss over if it ends up shitting on people who are already being shit on and driven to suicide by people insisting they must be one of two genders, as established on their birth certificate.

I take your point about ‘indirect.’  I did mean ‘inverse.’  ‘The exception proves the rule.’  What that means, is that all laws and rules have exceptions.  The existence of exceptions means that there’s a general rule or law applying in most circumstances.

Very, very minor problems get overdiscussed when people have strong, often irrational feelings about them.

I really can’t see that the very, very minor distress of my hypothetically not using any pronoun referring to a hypothetical person when hypothetically asked to use ‘they’ is going to drive that person to suicide, when that hypothetical person is hypothetically submitted to much worse injuries, which none of the progressives here have chosen to mention or address.

Pronouns are just an easy sop to conscience.

An example of how languages change: “The exception proves the rule” comes from an archaic saying, from a time when “to prove” meant “to test,” and not “to establish that <something> is correct.”

The way it is commonly used today is nonsense. An exception does not demonstrate that the rule is correct. An exception tests the rule. And in this case, the exceptions demonstrate that the rule is not correct. I will assert that there is no correlation between the length of a discussion and the importance of the topic. Rather, on the internet, any random topic is liable to generate unending argument.

No, it doesn’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

It’s meant ‘proves’ the rule, not ‘tests’ the rule for almost two thousand years.  An exception does prove that a general rule exists.  When I was learning German, I started off learning the rules for determining the gender of nouns (and all German nouns have gender - masculine, feminine or neuter, and take gendered pronouns), and then had to learn (the very long lists) of exceptions to the rules.  The exceptions prove that the rule exists, not that it’s false.

German gendered nouns and their mandatory gendered pronouns has given me the perspective that this kerfuffle regarding preferred pronouns in English, which is a relatively non-gendered language, really is just a storm in a teacup.  There are more important things to get worried about.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 17470
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #519 on: February 16, 2019, 08:56:08 PM »
Sigh.
A- Lets let trans people themselves decide what they think is "very, very minor". My friends happen to get very upset about being misgendered and its a symptom of an overall culture that undervalues them and makes them acceptable targets of violence to many people.
B- Fallacy of relative privation.
You admit to being ignorant about trans issues so how the fuck would you know what people are putting their effort into and in what amount relative to other issues? You are putting as much or more effort into this "very, very minor" issue as anyone else.

Your priority if valuing your own comfort with percieved grammatical rules over the acceptance of trans identities make you a bigot. A transphobic bigot. Thats not slander, your own posts here are the evidence.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10116
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #520 on: February 16, 2019, 09:37:38 PM »
I think you meant inverse proportion rather than indirect proportion. The less important a subject, the more time will be spent arguing it. However, some important subjects get a lot of discussion, and some unimportant subjects are quickly put to bed. So Parkinson’s law/corollary/whatever is more a vague “sometimes” than a law.

As for the ambiguity of “they,” language is chock-full of ambiguities. Personally, I’d see nothing too wrong with your suggestion of avoiding personal pronouns altogether, until someone realizes that you are treating them differently than you’re treating everyone else, and it begins to look as though you are uncomfortable with or in denial of their gender identity.

Personally, I share your feelings about using “they” as a singular, but I just don’t think it’s important enough to make a fuss over if it ends up shitting on people who are already being shit on and driven to suicide by people insisting they must be one of two genders, as established on their birth certificate.

I take your point about ‘indirect.’  I did mean ‘inverse.’  ‘The exception proves the rule.’  What that means, is that all laws and rules have exceptions.  The existence of exceptions means that there’s a general rule or law applying in most circumstances.

Very, very minor problems get overdiscussed when people have strong, often irrational feelings about them.

I really can’t see that the very, very minor distress of my hypothetically not using any pronoun referring to a hypothetical person when hypothetically asked to use ‘they’ is going to drive that person to suicide, when that hypothetical person is hypothetically submitted to much worse injuries, which none of the progressives here have chosen to mention or address.

Pronouns are just an easy sop to conscience.

An example of how languages change: “The exception proves the rule” comes from an archaic saying, from a time when “to prove” meant “to test,” and not “to establish that <something> is correct.”

The way it is commonly used today is nonsense. An exception does not demonstrate that the rule is correct. An exception tests the rule. And in this case, the exceptions demonstrate that the rule is not correct. I will assert that there is no correlation between the length of a discussion and the importance of the topic. Rather, on the internet, any random topic is liable to generate unending argument.

No, it doesn’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

It’s meant ‘proves’ the rule, not ‘tests’ the rule for almost two thousand years.  An exception does prove that a general rule exists.  When I was learning German, I started off learning the rules for determining the gender of nouns (and all German nouns have gender - masculine, feminine or neuter, and take gendered pronouns), and then had to learn (the very long lists) of exceptions to the rules.  The exceptions prove that the rule exists, not that it’s false.

German gendered nouns and their mandatory gendered pronouns has given me the perspective that this kerfuffle regarding preferred pronouns in English, which is a relatively non-gendered language, really is just a storm in a teacup.  There are more important things to get worried about.


The Wikipedia article confirms that “the exception proves the rule” does NOT mean that an exception to a rule demonstrates that the rule was correct. Many people use it that way and the article points out that they are wrong.

Since we were not discussing legislation, that whole portion of the article is irrelevant for our discussion. We were also not discussing scientific classifications of species.

We were discussing the proposition that internet discussions last longer the more trivial they are. This is not a “law” in the legislative sense. It is intended to be a truism, whereas I contend that it’s just completely wrong, and that there’s no correlation at all between the importance of topics and the length of the internet discussions around them. An exception to this “rule” is not a “proof” that the rule exists, it is rather a piece of evidence against the veracity of the “rule,” and a sufficient number of exceptions invalidate the “rule” entirely.

And as I said before, on the internet, all sort of topics are discussed ad infinitum, both trivial and consequential. Attempts to validate the “rule” rely on confirmation bias. If you want to believe the “rule” you can find an endless list of examples; but you are ignoring the equally endless list of counter-examples.
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2893
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #521 on: February 17, 2019, 12:00:25 AM »
I think you meant inverse proportion rather than indirect proportion. The less important a subject, the more time will be spent arguing it. However, some important subjects get a lot of discussion, and some unimportant subjects are quickly put to bed. So Parkinson’s law/corollary/whatever is more a vague “sometimes” than a law.

As for the ambiguity of “they,” language is chock-full of ambiguities. Personally, I’d see nothing too wrong with your suggestion of avoiding personal pronouns altogether, until someone realizes that you are treating them differently than you’re treating everyone else, and it begins to look as though you are uncomfortable with or in denial of their gender identity.

Personally, I share your feelings about using “they” as a singular, but I just don’t think it’s important enough to make a fuss over if it ends up shitting on people who are already being shit on and driven to suicide by people insisting they must be one of two genders, as established on their birth certificate.

I take your point about ‘indirect.’  I did mean ‘inverse.’  ‘The exception proves the rule.’  What that means, is that all laws and rules have exceptions.  The existence of exceptions means that there’s a general rule or law applying in most circumstances.

Very, very minor problems get overdiscussed when people have strong, often irrational feelings about them.

I really can’t see that the very, very minor distress of my hypothetically not using any pronoun referring to a hypothetical person when hypothetically asked to use ‘they’ is going to drive that person to suicide, when that hypothetical person is hypothetically submitted to much worse injuries, which none of the progressives here have chosen to mention or address.

Pronouns are just an easy sop to conscience.

An example of how languages change: “The exception proves the rule” comes from an archaic saying, from a time when “to prove” meant “to test,” and not “to establish that <something> is correct.”

The way it is commonly used today is nonsense. An exception does not demonstrate that the rule is correct. An exception tests the rule. And in this case, the exceptions demonstrate that the rule is not correct. I will assert that there is no correlation between the length of a discussion and the importance of the topic. Rather, on the internet, any random topic is liable to generate unending argument.

No, it doesn’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

It’s meant ‘proves’ the rule, not ‘tests’ the rule for almost two thousand years.  An exception does prove that a general rule exists.  When I was learning German, I started off learning the rules for determining the gender of nouns (and all German nouns have gender - masculine, feminine or neuter, and take gendered pronouns), and then had to learn (the very long lists) of exceptions to the rules.  The exceptions prove that the rule exists, not that it’s false.

German gendered nouns and their mandatory gendered pronouns has given me the perspective that this kerfuffle regarding preferred pronouns in English, which is a relatively non-gendered language, really is just a storm in a teacup.  There are more important things to get worried about.


The Wikipedia article confirms that “the exception proves the rule” does NOT mean that an exception to a rule demonstrates that the rule was correct. Many people use it that way and the article points out that they are wrong.

Since we were not discussing legislation, that whole portion of the article is irrelevant for our discussion. We were also not discussing scientific classifications of species.

We were discussing the proposition that internet discussions last longer the more trivial they are. This is not a “law” in the legislative sense. It is intended to be a truism, whereas I contend that it’s just completely wrong, and that there’s no correlation at all between the importance of topics and the length of the internet discussions around them. An exception to this “rule” is not a “proof” that the rule exists, it is rather a piece of evidence against the veracity of the “rule,” and a sufficient number of exceptions invalidate the “rule” entirely.

And as I said before, on the internet, all sort of topics are discussed ad infinitum, both trivial and consequential. Attempts to validate the “rule” rely on confirmation bias. If you want to believe the “rule” you can find an endless list of examples; but you are ignoring the equally endless list of counter-examples.

No (again).  ‘The exception proves the rule’ means that the exception proves the existence of the rule, not that having exceptions disproves the rule.  Having exceptions to a rule means that the rule is true in most cases.

Parkinson’s law is more of a rule than a law.  There are exceptions.  Parkinson’s corollary to Parkinson’s law is also a rule, and has its exceptions.  This multi-month argument about ‘they’ as a non-gendered 3rd person singular pronoun isn’t an exception proving the rule.  It’s a very good example illustrating the rule.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9772
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #522 on: February 17, 2019, 11:32:43 PM »
If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't be trying so hard to get you to change your behaviour for this long. In fact, your belief that it's not important is a big part of the problem.
Self-described nerd.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2893
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #523 on: February 18, 2019, 12:21:17 AM »
If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't be trying so hard to get you to change your behaviour for this long. In fact, your belief that it's not important is a big part of the problem.

Well, if I hypothetically ever had social contact with transgender or non-binary gender persons (which I don’t), or if I hypothetically visited transgender or non-binary gender websites or used social media (which I don’t), then hypothetically I might change my hypothetical behaviour to avoid hypothetical injury to transgender or non-binary gender persons by hypothetically declining to use ‘they’ as a singular pronoun, instead of hypothetically using other non-gendered formulations.

I regard the harm done to vulnerable minorities as a result of bullying,ridiculing, mobbing and the use of the ‘wrong’ 3rd person singular pronoun isn’t much greater than the harm done to vulnerable minorities by bullying, ridiculing, mobbing and the use of the ‘right’ 3rd person singular pronoun.

You’re the perfect example of Parkinson’s corollary to Parkinson’s law.  Spending an inordinate amount of time on trivia and ignoring the important.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9772
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Episode #700
« Reply #524 on: February 18, 2019, 12:42:35 AM »
You’re the perfect example of Parkinson’s corollary to Parkinson’s law.  Spending an inordinate amount of time on trivia and ignoring the important.

You don't know what I am or am not ignoring. Lots of things are important, and getting you to acknowledge one in no way means that other things aren't. And this is such a simple thing to fix, if only you would give up your slavish addiction to "proper" grammar.

How can I convince you that getting pronouns right is important?
Self-described nerd.