5 ms·

Occupy Wallstreet did happen but it was torpedoed by identity politics, the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color.

by golf3 7y ago

jrs95 7y ago
And who benefits from and promotes that? The wealthy and powerful. They WANT us to be divided along those lines so we'll all get out and vote for corporate Democrats who say the right things about identity politics and pretend to be leftists.
danharaj 7y ago
Occuy Wallstreet was violently uprooted by police action. Your statement is ignorant and in poor taste.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  occupy turned into a protest about the right to protest (classic strategy to stop any protest and derail message) and thus was able to be destroyed from outside but it also changed within due to Identity politics which lost many original supporters...however idpol didn't destroy it nor was the movement somehow more acceptable to the authorities when it changed.
Will_Parker 7y ago
> the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color. Do they? Try making a case that we don't need more than two sets of gendered pronouns in your tech job.
- bigYahnz 7y ago
  Why would there need to be more than two when there are only two genders?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Are you saying tech isn’t establishment? IDK about percentages, but it’s definitely not the 90s anymore.
  - Will_Parker 7y ago
    I'm saying the establishment, including tech, doesn't permit open critical discussion on the topic of gender.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  So the pronouns thing is literally about being nice to people and respecting their ability to define their own identity. It's less "we need more than two sets of gendered pronouns" and more "people use pronouns other than he or she and we want to make space for that".
  - Will_Parker 7y ago
    And any sort of diversion from that approved narrative, like suggesting that some of this is going a little too far, will make you a pariah in the industry. This is what I'm getting in, in questioning how much "the establishment" allows vigorous debate.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      How is it going too far to call someone "they" or even a neopronoun like "xie"? What cost is it to you that you need to vigorously debate it?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        "why do you need to debate it" isn't the point - the point is that you can't debate one side of it without people lining up to burn the witch.
      - Will_Parker 7y ago
        I'm not interested in debating it here, because it could damage my career, which is my point. In fact, even debating whether I should be able to debate it could damage my career. I believe this widespread use of silencing tactics, by implicit threat, has gone too far.
        danharaj 7y ago
        There are a great many things you can't debate about people. For example, you would be severely censured if you debated whether your colleague's chronic illness really was as bad as they claim it is. If the position is "I should be able to question and debate anything about my colleagues" then the position is obviously absurd and I would ask a person holding such a view to reevaluate what they think society is. I don't think you would hold such a position. So, why are you troubled that you can't debate this particular thing, when I'm sure there are things you shouldn't debate about your colleagues?
- tremon 7y ago
  Okay. We only need one set of gendered pronouns. Using words from one set for some people, while using words from a different set for other people, is subject to arbitrary interpretation and therefore vulnerable to othering.
  - Will_Parker 7y ago
    > We only need one set of gendered pronouns Which set do you think would suffice?
    - manicdee 7y ago
      Spivak
    - rigorous 7y ago
      In my native language, that is, Kazakh, third-person pronouns are gender-less. "It said it would come tomorrow" means "He/She/It said he/she/it would come tomorrow" and it somehow works :) You're to infer the gender from context.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        English example is the singular they. "It" has some additional implication on age.
        f1refly 7y ago
        Except the "singular they" doesn't exist and in basically a forced change of spoken language by a minority who thinks forcing people is a great way to accomplish things
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        There's no other way to enact change than force or consensus, or mix of these. Consensus is not going to happen. Languages change very slowly. Royal We was forced, but in widespread use. This pronoun is an offshoot thereof. And other languages have even better pronouns than English. Check Chinese and Japanese.

Occupy Wallstreet did happen but it was torpedoed by identity politics, the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color.

by golf3 7y ago

Occupy Wallstreet did happen but it was torpedoed by identity politics, the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color.

jrs95 7y ago

And who benefits from and promotes that? The wealthy and powerful. They WANT us to be divided along those lines so we'll all get out and vote for corporate Democrats who say the right things about identity politics and pretend to be leftists.

danharaj 7y ago

Occuy Wallstreet was violently uprooted by police action. Your statement is ignorant and in poor taste.

thinkingemote 7y ago
occupy turned into a protest about the right to protest (classic strategy to stop any protest and derail message) and thus was able to be destroyed from outside but it also changed within due to Identity politics which lost many original supporters...however idpol didn't destroy it nor was the movement somehow more acceptable to the authorities when it changed.

Will_Parker 7y ago

> the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color. Do they? Try making a case that we don't need more than two sets of gendered pronouns in your tech job.

bigYahnz 7y ago
Why would there need to be more than two when there are only two genders?
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Are you saying tech isn’t establishment? IDK about percentages, but it’s definitely not the 90s anymore.
- Will_Parker 7y ago
  I'm saying the establishment, including tech, doesn't permit open critical discussion on the topic of gender.
wayoutthere 7y ago
So the pronouns thing is literally about being nice to people and respecting their ability to define their own identity. It's less "we need more than two sets of gendered pronouns" and more "people use pronouns other than he or she and we want to make space for that".
- Will_Parker 7y ago
  And any sort of diversion from that approved narrative, like suggesting that some of this is going a little too far, will make you a pariah in the industry. This is what I'm getting in, in questioning how much "the establishment" allows vigorous debate.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    How is it going too far to call someone "they" or even a neopronoun like "xie"? What cost is it to you that you need to vigorously debate it?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      "why do you need to debate it" isn't the point - the point is that you can't debate one side of it without people lining up to burn the witch.
    - Will_Parker 7y ago
      I'm not interested in debating it here, because it could damage my career, which is my point. In fact, even debating whether I should be able to debate it could damage my career. I believe this widespread use of silencing tactics, by implicit threat, has gone too far.
      - danharaj 7y ago
        There are a great many things you can't debate about people. For example, you would be severely censured if you debated whether your colleague's chronic illness really was as bad as they claim it is. If the position is "I should be able to question and debate anything about my colleagues" then the position is obviously absurd and I would ask a person holding such a view to reevaluate what they think society is. I don't think you would hold such a position. So, why are you troubled that you can't debate this particular thing, when I'm sure there are things you shouldn't debate about your colleagues?
tremon 7y ago
Okay. We only need one set of gendered pronouns. Using words from one set for some people, while using words from a different set for other people, is subject to arbitrary interpretation and therefore vulnerable to othering.
- Will_Parker 7y ago
  > We only need one set of gendered pronouns Which set do you think would suffice?
  - manicdee 7y ago
    Spivak
  - rigorous 7y ago
    In my native language, that is, Kazakh, third-person pronouns are gender-less. "It said it would come tomorrow" means "He/She/It said he/she/it would come tomorrow" and it somehow works :) You're to infer the gender from context.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      English example is the singular they. "It" has some additional implication on age.
      - f1refly 7y ago
        Except the "singular they" doesn't exist and in basically a forced change of spoken language by a minority who thinks forcing people is a great way to accomplish things
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        There's no other way to enact change than force or consensus, or mix of these. Consensus is not going to happen. Languages change very slowly. Royal We was forced, but in widespread use. This pronoun is an offshoot thereof. And other languages have even better pronouns than English. Check Chinese and Japanese.