|
Groovelord Neato posted:public pud pulling mods please
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
JVNO posted:... How? Pronouns are a closed class and they are extremely rarely loaned from other languages and very rarely shift within existing core vocabulary. I can only think of one case: in Estonian a demonstrative pronoun has become a personal pronoun. Maltese for example retains a full complement of Arabic pronouns despite being almost entirely relexicalized with Latin vocabulary. So lol if anyone actually thinks we'll be saying xir in the future. If gender neutrality ever manages to be enforced in English, it'll be the domestic, Shakespearean, singular they.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
On the other hand we have youse, y'all, yez, the singular ours. We make up pronouns as needed. The reason there isn't a gender neutral pronoun is because there isn't sufficient need for one yet, as there becomes a need for one and a need to differentiate it from the various other uses of "they", one will emerge.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:On the other hand we have youse, y'all, yez, the singular ours. We make up pronouns as needed. The reason there isn't a gender neutral pronoun is because there isn't sufficient need for one yet, as there becomes a need for one and a need to differentiate it from the various other uses of "they", one will emerge. Those are all derived from you, hth 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Those are all derived from you, hth They are, however, grammatically distinct words. You can't use them interchangeably. So that they are phonetically derived from a related word, as, I should point out, xir is, is not especially relevant to the discussion, is it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They are, however, grammatically distinct words. You can't use them interchangeably. This is literal nonsense. You shouldn't try to use big words you don't understand. Look up a wiki article on parts of speech or something, jesus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
It literally isn't and that isn't a counterargument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It literally isn't and that isn't a counterargument. I can't counterargue because you're not arguing anything. You're basically saying wind turbines are bad because the glib-globs will flim-flam the zim-zams. I'm not a clairvoyant and you have so little clue what you're talking about that I can't even tell what you've got wrong to correct it. I'd need to effortpost parts of speech from the ground up, which I won't. There's wikipedia for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
You argued that youse is derived from you. Yes, it is. Xir/xe are also derived from him/her/he/she, conceptually and phonetically. That doesn't actually prove anything. It isn't relevant to the discussion. Youse is grammatically distinct from you, it serves a different purpose in the language, it exists because there is no definite way of conveying the concept that it does, unambiguously. Youse and you are not interchangeable. Youse/y'all is plural, you is singular or plural.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:I can't counterargue because you're not arguing anything. You're basically saying wind turbines are bad because the glib-globs will flim-flam the zim-zams. Did you get bullied a lot? I hope you did. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You argued that youse is derived from you. Yes, it is. Xir/xe are also derived from him/her/he/she, conceptually and phonetically. None of this has anything to do with the topic. Phonetics have nothing to do with the topic. Deriving a new pronoun from an existing pronoun is not introducing a foreign element into a closed group, which is the topic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:None of this has anything to do with the topic. Phonetics have nothing to do with the topic. Deriving a new pronoun from an existing pronoun is not introducing a foreign element into a closed group, which is the topic. What do you think taking an existing pronoun and modifying it to make a gender neutral version consistent with the existing gendered versions is? Other than apparently profoundly upsetting to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What do you think taking an existing pronoun and modifying it to make a gender neutral version consistent with the existing gendered versions is? It's not modifying an existing pronoun, it's inventing one that vaguely sounds like an existing one. Y'all and vosotros both contain the original element, they didn't try to introduce bou or gos to replace the lost singular-plural distinction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Which makes the argument entirely about how it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Pronouns are a closed class and they are extremely rarely loaned from other languages and very rarely shift within existing core vocabulary. Just as an aside, this happened in Swedish very recently which I think is cool. We have the masculine han, the feminine hon, and nowadays (since like the latest 7 years) we have the gender-neutral hen. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hen#Swedish) Personally I find it a good complement to our other pronouns - it's easier to write "hen" than to write "han/hon" when discussing cases where noting gender isn't useful or wanted. Welcome to Sweden, where nothing is safe from the Politically Correct Dictatorship, not even grammar 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which makes the argument entirely about how it sounds. The argument is entirely about derivatives within a class versus introducing new elements to a closed class. I keep telling you this but you won't listen. Konec Hry posted:Just as an aside, this happened in Swedish very recently which I think is cool. We have the masculine han, the feminine hon, And how widely is it actually used? That sounds like an affectation, not something that will be universal in a few hundred years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
It's irrelevant if the new element is glibglob or xir, maybe this will help you. They're both foreign elements and you'll have a hell of a hard time trying to get people to adopt them. Prescriptivism doesn't work too well to begin with, and, as I keep saying, closed classes are even more stabile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
If "they" and "their" was good enough for Shakespeare it's good enough for me. But hey if you want to add other gender neutral pronouns that's cool too.
Terrible Opinions fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:And how widely is it actually used? That sounds like an affectation, not something that will be universal in a few hundred years. Depends on your generation. It's getting more and more normalized and "hen" stands alongside "han" and "hon" in textbooks in school, although with a little caveat. It still has a political tinge to it, but what I think it has going for it is that it's just simply more logical and more effective. It's way easier to just say "hen" instead of constructions like "han eller hon" or however you had to do it before. Personally, that's why I'm guessing it actually will be universal - every other way in Swedish to express the same meaning without using that word will be more clunky and less effective. Also, it even sounds good! Han, hon, hen. Great!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:It's irrelevant if the new element is glibglob or xir, maybe this will help you. They're both foreign elements and you'll have a hell of a hard time trying to get people to adopt them. Prescriptivism doesn't work too well to begin with, and, as I keep saying, closed classes are even more stabile. And as I told you, the reason things are not adopted is because there is not a need for them. As a need arises, so a word will become adopted to fill it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Did you get bullied a lot? I hope you did. gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And as I told you, the reason things are not adopted is because there is not a need for them. As a need arises, so a word will become adopted to fill it. And as I said in my very first post, that word will be one that doesn't cross one of the most stabile boundaries in any language. In fact, there's already one like that being used at this very moment, read my post to find out which word it is!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Has it occured to you that the reason we don't invent new pronouns very often is not some magical quality of pronouns and simply that we don't invent new categories of people very often?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:None of this has anything to do with the topic. Phonetics have nothing to do with the topic. Deriving a new pronoun from an existing pronoun is not introducing a foreign element into a closed group, which is the topic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Has it occured to you that the reason we don't invent new pronouns very often is not some magical quality of pronouns and simply that we don't invent new categories of people very often? This ~magical quality of pronouns~ is an actually documented phenomenon, as I outlined in my very first post. Please go back and actually read it this time, and also the wiki article on parts of speech for good measure. Why go through all this backtracking if you're going to spout the same bullshit all over again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
You stated that they don't tend to change, you didn't offer any sort of postulation as to why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Please explain how you are drawing this distinction. Is it just a matter of age or do you hold a belief that because gender was a category of this existing system modifying the category is not allowed? How is y'all any more of a change from you than xe is from he? Neither one contains a complete syllable of their parent. Y'all is a contraction of you all, which contains the existing element just as vosotros and nosotros do. It's gone through some sound changes since being derived, much like ik (eek) became I (ee), which was later diphtongized into I (eye). e: OwlFancier posted:You stated that they don't tend to change, you didn't offer any sort of postulation as to why. It's because they're a closed class, read the wiki article already, I'll even link to it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech#Open_and_closed_classes Osama Dozen-Dongs fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Y'all is a contraction of you all, which contains the existing element just as vosotros and nosotros do. It's gone through some sound changes since being derived, much like ik (eek) became I (ee), which was later diphtongized into I (eye).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Jordan Peterson bums me out more than any public intellectual I can think of, because there's some really good stuff in his lectures (especially his early ones when he was still just the 'Maps of Meaning' guy), and then he just poisons the well with some insane tangent a mile outside his academic expertise. Top tier grad programs should just show a video of him ranting about economics or linguistics and be like "and this kids, is why you should stay in your goddamn lane and just talk about things you know about."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Is there a good response video to Peterson out there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
vseslav.botkin posted:Is there a good response video to Peterson out there? Mark Fisher has a good start, he's the guy who wrote "Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?" but he died this year so I doubt he'll follow the video up. Really the problem with Jordan Peterson isn't that he's wrong in one specific axiom or something, it's that he's long since strayed out of the field he's an expert in, and is turning himself into a roaming intellectual at large for Patreon dollars, like a slightly smarter but much more reactionary Malcom Gladwell or Jared Diamond. The problem with doing that is you run into this scenario where everything he says is vaguely plausible and connects well, because he's just drawing a straight ideological line out from his prior assumptions - but that's not the way actual scientific inquiry works, so the more you know about any of the specific things he's saying, the less accurate they seem. Since he's now in the habit of opining about psychology, neuroscience, developmental biology, economics, philosophy, french history and space exploration in the course of a 30 minute lecture video, that means you've gotta organize like 12 experts to fine-tooth-comb his gish gallop. I wish he would just stick to talking about Jung and applying his 'Maps of Meaning' ideas to literature, because those lectures are really cool and good (IMO at least). TheQuietWilds fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:So you're arguing for e/em/es or ey/em/eir pronouns then? Given that it's already how heavy accents render "he" and "She" anyways. That's a lot more realistic, yes. That'd be more like dropping one gendered pronoun and generalizing the other one. Like I said a couple of times already, I think the most likely one to stick around is the one already in use for hundreds of years, the singular they, or maybe a derivative of it. Or, actually, a derivative taking the plural meaning, like with the yous. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a few hundred years we had they as a gender neutral 3rd person singular and something like th'all as 3rd person plural. Osama Dozen-Dongs fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
TheQuietWilds posted:Jordan Peterson bums me out more than any public intellectual I can think of, because there's some really good stuff in his lectures (especially his early ones when he was still just the 'Maps of Meaning' guy), and then he just poisons the well with some insane tangent a mile outside his academic expertise. Top tier grad programs should just show a video of him ranting about economics or linguistics and be like "and this kids, is why you should stay in your goddamn lane and just talk about things you know about." He's definitely way too high off of the flattery of his followers to go back to his academic lane, I mean look at this poo poo: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/930669376440856576
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:That's a lot more realistic, yes. That'd be more like dropping one gendered pronoun and generalizing the other one. Like I said a couple of times already, I think the most likely one to stick around is the one already in use for hundreds of years, the singular they, or maybe a derivative of it. Or, actually, a derivative taking the plural meaning, like with the yous. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a few hundred years we had they as a gender neutral 3rd person singular and something like th'all as 3rd person plural. Don't worry, I understood what you were talking about from the start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Amos Yee is still horrifying and should probably be kept away from children. https://twitter.com/shaun_jen/status/930843945357234178 https://twitter.com/21logician/status/930833347374452737
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
That guy’s really into loving kids. I hope the cops are watching his ip traffic, wherever he lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
 Didn't even try the 'after puberty...' line, straight on to 'but what if the 10 year old consents?'
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
The sad thing is that if any of these turds were trying to make an argument in good faith (And with better timing obviously), there could be a real discussion about like, getting pedophiles help and trying to push a program for therapy or something, instead of conditioning them to hide it and let it fester until they unfortunately get a chance to act. But then at the same time I guess that'd also require the US to be a country that cares about mental health at all so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:The sad thing is that if any of these turds were trying to make an argument in good faith (And with better timing obviously), there could be a real discussion about like, getting pedophiles help and trying to push a program for therapy or something, instead of conditioning them to hide it and let it fester until they unfortunately get a chance to act. But then at the same time I guess that'd also require the US to be a country that cares about mental health at all so. is it even a mental health issue to be a pedo? human sexuality is weird, but weird on a spectrum - there's heterosexuality, which makes total sense from a mammalian biological standpoint, then there's homosexuality, which seems to not make sense but does if you think about it in terms of social behavior (despite the statements of libertarians, humans are tremendously social animals) and then you start getting into odder sexual behavior like kinks and fetishes which deviate from or complicate sort of vanilla sexual behavior so, is pedophilia a mental illness? or is it a disorder, in that you ended up having one of the worst possible sexual kinks, one that can't ever be acted on and for which the only real recourse is the elimination of your sex drive lest you harm others? the point of my question here is, i'm not even sure what you can do with a pedo except use chemicals and surgery to turn off their sexuality entirely. like i don't think there's therapy for it beyond learning to cope with the fact that you will never have the kind of sex you want to have
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:is it even a mental health issue to be a pedo? human sexuality is weird, but weird on a spectrum - there's heterosexuality, which makes total sense from a mammalian biological standpoint, then there's homosexuality, which seems to not make sense but does if you think about it in terms of social behavior (despite the statements of libertarians, humans are tremendously social animals) and then you start getting into odder sexual behavior like kinks and fetishes which deviate from or complicate sort of vanilla sexual behavior Well there are definitely people with fetishes that are too dangerous to enact or that would harm others, and those people are either fine not acting on them or are able to successfully avoid acting on them with therapeutic help. Some are probably even more common than child rape, like people with adult rape fantasies. All of this is different from insisting that child molesters have the right to rape children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:41
|
|