3 ms·

Saying that people butcher a language is a form of chastising people over language. Why should others follow your suggestion when you don't do it yourself? Wh

by dalke 11y ago

Saying that people butcher a language is a form of chastising people over language. Why should others follow your suggestion when you don't do it yourself? Why should others respond with thought and respect when you offer only supreme sarcasm? And no, I will not let people like my wife stay faceless in the background of "the good men." How would you prefer that I correct usage like this in the future? Do you have a better term than "sexist"?

marcoperaza 11y ago
>Why should others respond with thought and respect when you offer only supreme sarcasm? Revisionist history doesn't work when the history is two scrolls up. I made a joke, but I also gave you a serious response along with it. >Saying that people butcher a language is a form of chastising people over language. That's my opinion but I don't go around correcting people every time they drop a "he or she". I certainly don't start making insinuations about their character over it. I was responding to a completely unwarranted attack. >And no, I will not let people like my wife stay faceless in the background of "the good men." How would you prefer that I correct usage like this in the future? Do you have a better term than "sexist"? This isn't how you have discourse. You don't pick out two words that someone says, make it about your wife, and call them a sexist. Especially when it's abundantly clear that the role of women in the military wasn't even part of the discussion. But if your goal was to derail discussion, you were somewhat successful.
- dalke 11y ago
  "but I also gave you a serious response" And I followed up on your serious response with the suggestion of "good souls", plus an analysis of the alternatives. I then addressed to your sarcastic response, taking it serious to show the different ways to analyze alternatives. "You don't pick out two words that someone says, make it about your wife, and call them a sexist" What I wrote started "See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". I did not call you a sexist. You may think that's only a technical point. I can accept that, though I disagree. It certainly wasn't meant as an attack on your character. (That said, would you prefer a safe area where you won't get your feelings hurt?) If you can suggest a better way to object - one more likely to lead to effective change, let me know. As it was, when my wife was demobbed and we went to the Army FRG meetings (https://www.armyfrg.org/ https://www.armyfrg.org/), even a few of the external (civilian) presenters would refer to the returning soldier as a "he". They were quickly corrected, and not just be me. And when I did object, the presenter did not turn around and call me PC or accuse me of besmirching their character. It's almost as if the way towards good discourse is to respond to an objection rather than double down on the original viewpoint despite a warning that it's a sensitive subject.

by dalke 11y ago

marcoperaza 11y ago

>Why should others respond with thought and respect when you offer only supreme sarcasm? Revisionist history doesn't work when the history is two scrolls up. I made a joke, but I also gave you a serious response along with it. >Saying that people butcher a language is a form of chastising people over language. That's my opinion but I don't go around correcting people every time they drop a "he or she". I certainly don't start making insinuations about their character over it. I was responding to a completely unwarranted attack. >And no, I will not let people like my wife stay faceless in the background of "the good men." How would you prefer that I correct usage like this in the future? Do you have a better term than "sexist"? This isn't how you have discourse. You don't pick out two words that someone says, make it about your wife, and call them a sexist. Especially when it's abundantly clear that the role of women in the military wasn't even part of the discussion. But if your goal was to derail discussion, you were somewhat successful.

dalke 11y ago
"but I also gave you a serious response" And I followed up on your serious response with the suggestion of "good souls", plus an analysis of the alternatives. I then addressed to your sarcastic response, taking it serious to show the different ways to analyze alternatives. "You don't pick out two words that someone says, make it about your wife, and call them a sexist" What I wrote started "See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". I did not call you a sexist. You may think that's only a technical point. I can accept that, though I disagree. It certainly wasn't meant as an attack on your character. (That said, would you prefer a safe area where you won't get your feelings hurt?) If you can suggest a better way to object - one more likely to lead to effective change, let me know. As it was, when my wife was demobbed and we went to the Army FRG meetings (https://www.armyfrg.org/ https://www.armyfrg.org/), even a few of the external (civilian) presenters would refer to the returning soldier as a "he". They were quickly corrected, and not just be me. And when I did object, the presenter did not turn around and call me PC or accuse me of besmirching their character. It's almost as if the way towards good discourse is to respond to an objection rather than double down on the original viewpoint despite a warning that it's a sensitive subject.