Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    what are you talking about?


    I got nothin', man.
    Quote Originally Posted by THE Bigzoman View Post
    Meant Wetback. That's what the guy from Home Depot called it anyway.
    ==================================
    If you say pls because it is shorter than please,
    I'll say no because it is shorter than yes.
    ==================================

  2. #22
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by ItachiZaku View Post


    I got nothin', man.
    What? Kinda hard to know what the op is talking about without an example to look at and check up on.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    What? Kinda hard to know what the op is talking about without an example to look at and check up on.
    lol no, i agree. ^ that was my face reading his shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by THE Bigzoman View Post
    Meant Wetback. That's what the guy from Home Depot called it anyway.
    ==================================
    If you say pls because it is shorter than please,
    I'll say no because it is shorter than yes.
    ==================================

  4. #24
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by ItachiZaku View Post
    lol no, i agree. ^ that was my face reading his shit.
    Ah ok, lol.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    WASP is actually used in a condescending tone
    That's context of usage. Not the word in of itself- which is not hateful. It describes something in a social context.

    It's also simply wrong because there aren't any and haven't been for hundreds of years.
    There is such a family like 3 houses down from me. As I type this post I can see my "wasp" coworker cleaning his desk through my office window.

    So your point is that "numbers are increasing" and that's it?
    It is that culture changes. I said it three times. It happens. Period.

    Seems kind of shallow for an analysis.
    It's not a complex subject. More people of the current day think X, Y, Z about A, B, C things and create media, technology, policies, laws, art, social acceptance, etc that are in line with those thoughts. As they have for ages.

    Times change.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    It is that culture changes. I said it three times. It happens. Period.

    It's not a complex subject. More people of the current day think X, Y, Z about A, B, C things and create media, technology, policies, laws, art, social acceptance, etc that are in line with those thoughts. As they have for ages.
    Not like you've provided any evidence showing that it's growing. I doubt it can be meaningfully measured anyway. But we'll take that pretension as a given.

    That times change is not what's being put to question, but your capacity to predict that this particular behaviour is "the direction culture is headed": it doesn't follow from the uninteresting truism.
    There's always growing numbers about all kinds of weird shit. It doesn't say anything about their clout to shape culture in any meaningful way.

    Heck, I just invented a religion, if you join we'll double its size in an instant and become the fastest growing religion of the moment.
    Last edited by nextormento; 2016-09-29 at 01:53 PM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    Whats there to discuss if I cannot personally look into it further? Am I only to take OPs claim at face value?
    What claims? The OP asked your opinion to a situation he described.

  8. #28
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    What claims? The OP asked your opinion to a situation he described.
    Well, what is the ops opinion based on if I can't see what they refer to? It's not rocket science.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by GennGreymane View Post
    Well, what is the ops opinion based on if I can't see what they refer to? It's not rocket science.
    What do we care what his opinions were based on, he asked for ours, not for a comment on his nor for a psych evaluation.

  10. #30
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    What do we care what his opinions were based on, he asked for ours, not for a comment on his nor for a psych evaluation.
    How can I form an opinion on something I can't be referred to? I mean if I can see what the op means for my self, it would make it much easier to form an opinion. It's not like I'm asking for anything peer reviewed or written in a major news outlet.

  11. #31
    The Forgettable Forgettable's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    5,180
    SJWs are at it again it seems.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    That's context of usage. Not the word in of itself- which is not hateful. It describes something in a social context.
    Fine, then you defeat the whole purpose of this nonsense.
    There is such a family like 3 houses down from me. As I type this post I can see my "wasp" coworker cleaning his desk through my office window.
    You're delusional. You're like one of those people who think there's some jewish cabal.
    It is that culture changes. I said it three times. It happens. Period.
    Not really a proposition, more of a blanket statement. Doesn't even imply culture will adopt this degenerate manner of speaking.
    It's not a complex subject. More people of the current day think X, Y, Z about A, B, C things and create media, technology, policies, laws, art, social acceptance, etc that are in line with those thoughts. As they have for ages.
    Times change.
    More platitudes only in service of your lack of a point.

  13. #33
    The Patient
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    335
    Im all for people having to put a bit more thought into their words so their intended meaning comes across better. Assumptions baked into a statement detract from the point. On the other hand things shouldnt be taken to the extreme beyond what is required by context. The ever growing LGBTTTQQIAA+ initialism being an example where meaning starts to get lost. If theres an article giving tips how to keep long hair healthy, dont automatically assume it only applies to women. If you mention how polite the tall guy at the supermarket was for helping you pick something from the top row, there shouldnt be any additional need to specify that you didnt do a DNA test or psychological evaluation to determine it really was a guy or someone who identifies as one. Or that even though they helped you, you dont attribute any traditional gender characteristics to them based on this one incident. Id like to think theres a middle ground between making broad, incorrect and unnecessary generalisations and complicated and confusing language where you spend more time explaining the meaning of words than the actual sentence has.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    It is likely the requirement for such is very limited. But even so, inclusive language is simply the direction culture is headed. No different from language such as, "jap" or "wasp" are not really seen as acceptable anymore- where they used to be common.

    Times change bro.
    So making a distinction between men and women will one day be unacceptable? That seems, for lack of a better word, fucktarded.

    I just can't see why that would or should ever be required. I mean I get it for racial reasons, but there are a lot of differences between cultures, genders, and sexual orientations. Sometimes people need to understand how a particular culture/gender/sexuality views things. It's not necessarily a bad thing and people shouldn't get offended by it.

    Variety is the spice of life and if we attempt to eliminate some of that then life gets a lot more boring. IMO people need to just not be so sensitive. Sometimes I wonder if it might be a good thing to have world war 3 so people can put things into perspective. I mean, it wouldn't really be worth it, but it would put things into perspective.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Docturphil View Post
    So making a distinction between men and women will one day be unacceptable? That seems, for lack of a better word, fucktarded.
    Who knows. Language and the social norms that govern it's use changes all the time.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Who knows. Language and the social norms that govern it's use changes all the time.
    I'm trying to imagine how society would head down that path. The plain fact is that the generic differences between men and women is just so prevalent between races and cultures. It's just such a universally accepted thing. I mean it's biologically evident FFS. Science even agrees. Unless humans somehow become asexual, I don't see how that would ever happen. Otherwise society as a majority would just have to abandon all logic when it comes to the subject.

    Not saying women should stay in the kitchen and make sandwiches or anything like that, but there are just generic differences beyond sexual organs which influence personality traits.
    Last edited by Docturphil; 2016-09-29 at 09:03 PM.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Fine, then you defeat the whole purpose of this nonsense.
    As the OP describes the use of language; the criteria and example given for inclusive language does not expressly denote word or term use that is purposefully 'hateful'. Or rather, antagonistic &/or derogatory.

    Thus the term "WASP" is appropriate as a point of comparison; the term having no negative notion in of itself. Use of the term has simply changed.

    You're delusional. You're like one of those people who think there's some jewish cabal.
    I am Jewish...

    My coworker is not a white protestant living in America of German heritage from a nice neighborhood, wealthy family and has a good education? I am pretty sure I know the guy, but if he is actually a Mexican high school; drop out whose parents are destitute and he actually flies home to S. African every night from the Chicago Loop... I would be very surprised.

    More platitudes only in service of your lack of a point.
    I am not seeing your point here or the need for your emotional language, frankly.

    Culture, language and social norms change all the time. We have evidence of this; historically and contemporary. If the moderators of the Reddit sub the OP is using feel X, Y, Z about a subject and that sentiment is being shared across various platforms; that sentiment is being adopted.

    There is nothing more to say on the matter other than 'times change'; meaning what feel is acceptable changes all the time. That is a point of fact. It is further unnecessary to insert your value judgement of social norms- that is not germane to any of my posts.

    It seems like you simply want to argue your dislike of a certain sentiment or notion of culture. Which is fine, but I am not interested.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Docturphil View Post
    I'm trying to imagine how society would head down that path.
    Well, at my company we no longer say "Ladies" or "Gentlemen" in memos, or refer to "Men" and "Women", "Mr." or "Mrs.", etc. We say, "persons", "individuals", "employees", etc.

    Language use of that sort is considered inclusive by many. People accept and use it in various outlets. Natch, or we wouldn't be discussing it here even.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Well, at my company we no longer say "Ladies" or "Gentlemen" in memos, or refer to "Men" and "Women", "Mr." or "Mrs.", etc. We say, "persons", "individuals", "employees", etc.

    Language use of that sort is considered inclusive by many. People accept and use it in various outlets. Natch, or we wouldn't be discussing it here even.
    OK, if you're referring to a group of people that includes men and women, sure. What about if you are referring specifically to a group of men or women though? Or what if you are referring specifically to an individual? How could that ever become unacceptable to use gender specific terms in those instances? That's what I'm having a hard time imagining.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Docturphil View Post
    How could that ever become unacceptable to use gender specific terms in those instances? That's what I'm having a hard time imagining.
    I don't think that is an instance where 'inclusive language' is being called for or desired by those that hold to such notions.

  20. #40
    Elemental Lord callipygoustp's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    8,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro Fun View Post
    How do you feel about pages which requires inclusive phrasing?
    I don't feel anything about it.

    However, posts that attempt to create outrage over something so meaningless make me laugh inside a little so I like them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •