4 ms·

Specifically I meant specifying your own preferred gender pronouns in certain contexts. When enough of your peers do it, it feels downright strange to not do it

Specifically I meant specifying your own preferred gender pronouns in certain contexts. When enough of your peers do it, it feels downright strange to not do it even if you don't imagine anyone would have any problem deducing your gender and you wouldn't feel offended if they did happen to use the wrong gender for you. Of course it is completely fine for people to share preferred prounouns. But as pg has said the problem is with the things you not allowed to say, or alternately the things you are required to say and/or do. Being required to, say, share drinking fountains or pools with people of another race should not be compared to this. One is about allowing people to co-exist with you, the other is about complying with a strongly encouraged communal display of ideology. There are obvious comparisons to make but you can use your imagination about what those are.

newacct583 5y ago
> Being required to, say, share drinking fountains or pools with people of another race should not be compared to this. Indeed. And I didn't. I said "negro". Generations of people genuinely thought that was a neutral term. They were pissed as all fuck when all of a sudden it became a symbol of centuries of oppression. And they used language exactly like yours to express their exasperation. But the words changed anyway. And we all got over it, and civil society didn't dissolve. And at the end of the process, most of us look back and think of it as largely a good thing that we went and, well, cancelled that old word as a symbol. The new one is better, simply because it was born out of the self-determinism of the oppressed. Which is to say: get over yourself and declare your pronouns. (I'm a he/him, FWIW). Your grandkids will be ashamed that you fought it.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  Sounds like you're describing the word "Negro" as a [scapegoat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat): it was cast as a symbol of evil so that it could be canceled as such. I guess that's a way to see the basic tension there: some folks might argue that using scapegoats can help society move on, while others might object on the basis that the goat wasn't actually evil. Alternatively, we can see switching away from the word "Negro" as a rebranding effort, to retire prior literature and reduce historical associations. Either way.. I guess that what can seem weird about such social-engineering maneuvers is that they don't make any sense if we assume that people are ideal logical-thinkers; mechanically, they're more like side-channel attacks or emotional manipulation. And.. I guess folks might vary in how agreeable they might find well-intentioned emotional-manipulation.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    > some folks might argue that using scapegoats can help society move on, while others might object [...] Right, but in this particular instance what actually happened is that we just moved on by building consensus around a new paradigm. No one uses the word anymore, and nothing awful happened. Therefore I argue that similar hand wringing about gender pronouns is going to turn out equally bland. It's fine. Just relax. Society isn't falling apart, you're just being socially awkward. And in fifty years everyone will think the antiwoke conservatives were just being ridiculous.
    - _Nat_ 5y ago
      Eh.. do you have your astrological-signs on your profiles? If not, why not add them in solidarity with those who are deeply emotionally invested in seeing the world through that lens? Not only would it help them feel validated, knowing your astrological-sign would help them better understand you and know how to interact with you. At the same time.. not everyone wants to have to play along. A lot of new identity-trends emerge (and reemerge over time and in different places), giving adherents ways to self-conceptualize who they are as well as rules for how to interact with others. Some trends get really popular and can get a lot of true-believers, while others don't really get into them. Can you understand how both sides feel? This is, can you understand both what it'd feel like to be someone deeply invested in the latest trend in spirituality, and can you likewise understand what it'd feel like to want to give the latest trend in spirituality a pass? If this is the first trend you've seen, then it may seem like this big, huge thing that everyone should adopt. But you ask about 50-years from now? ..that's a long time for a trend to remain relevant, even if you're currently in a sub-culture that's super into it.
- watwut 5y ago
  I remember Fredrik Douglass article in which he complained about negro word being used. It offended him. And that was prior civil war, when he advocated against slavery. Which, quite a few people argued is a good thing.
  - EvilEy3 5y ago
    And? What's your point?
    - newacct583 5y ago
      I think it might have been that one of the great thinkers of nineteenth century abolitionism weighed in on exactly this subject and had something relevant to say? I mean... it's not like he was quoting someone on reddit here.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    Fredrick Douglass appears to have liked the term "Negro" [1]: > The form of the negro —[I use the term negro, precisely in the sense that you use the term Anglo Saxon; and I believe, too, that the former will one day be as illustrious as the latter] [...] Would you happen to recall where you may've seen Douglass complaining about it? --- 1: Frederick Douglass, "The claims of the Negro, ethnologically considered", 1854-07-12. PDF-page 16: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbaapc/07900/07900.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbaapc/079...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
feurio 5y ago
> When enough of your peers do it, it feels downright strange to not do it Really? Plenty of my friends on social media and a few work colleagues state their pronouns, but I've never even remotely felt that I need to. Is it perhaps that you are quite suggestible?

newacct583 5y ago

> Being required to, say, share drinking fountains or pools with people of another race should not be compared to this. Indeed. And I didn't. I said "negro". Generations of people genuinely thought that was a neutral term. They were pissed as all fuck when all of a sudden it became a symbol of centuries of oppression. And they used language exactly like yours to express their exasperation. But the words changed anyway. And we all got over it, and civil society didn't dissolve. And at the end of the process, most of us look back and think of it as largely a good thing that we went and, well, cancelled that old word as a symbol. The new one is better, simply because it was born out of the self-determinism of the oppressed. Which is to say: get over yourself and declare your pronouns. (I'm a he/him, FWIW). Your grandkids will be ashamed that you fought it.

_Nat_ 5y ago
Sounds like you're describing the word "Negro" as a [scapegoat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat): it was cast as a symbol of evil so that it could be canceled as such. I guess that's a way to see the basic tension there: some folks might argue that using scapegoats can help society move on, while others might object on the basis that the goat wasn't actually evil. Alternatively, we can see switching away from the word "Negro" as a rebranding effort, to retire prior literature and reduce historical associations. Either way.. I guess that what can seem weird about such social-engineering maneuvers is that they don't make any sense if we assume that people are ideal logical-thinkers; mechanically, they're more like side-channel attacks or emotional manipulation. And.. I guess folks might vary in how agreeable they might find well-intentioned emotional-manipulation.
- newacct583 5y ago
  > some folks might argue that using scapegoats can help society move on, while others might object [...] Right, but in this particular instance what actually happened is that we just moved on by building consensus around a new paradigm. No one uses the word anymore, and nothing awful happened. Therefore I argue that similar hand wringing about gender pronouns is going to turn out equally bland. It's fine. Just relax. Society isn't falling apart, you're just being socially awkward. And in fifty years everyone will think the antiwoke conservatives were just being ridiculous.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    Eh.. do you have your astrological-signs on your profiles? If not, why not add them in solidarity with those who are deeply emotionally invested in seeing the world through that lens? Not only would it help them feel validated, knowing your astrological-sign would help them better understand you and know how to interact with you. At the same time.. not everyone wants to have to play along. A lot of new identity-trends emerge (and reemerge over time and in different places), giving adherents ways to self-conceptualize who they are as well as rules for how to interact with others. Some trends get really popular and can get a lot of true-believers, while others don't really get into them. Can you understand how both sides feel? This is, can you understand both what it'd feel like to be someone deeply invested in the latest trend in spirituality, and can you likewise understand what it'd feel like to want to give the latest trend in spirituality a pass? If this is the first trend you've seen, then it may seem like this big, huge thing that everyone should adopt. But you ask about 50-years from now? ..that's a long time for a trend to remain relevant, even if you're currently in a sub-culture that's super into it.
watwut 5y ago
I remember Fredrik Douglass article in which he complained about negro word being used. It offended him. And that was prior civil war, when he advocated against slavery. Which, quite a few people argued is a good thing.
- EvilEy3 5y ago
  And? What's your point?
  - newacct583 5y ago
    I think it might have been that one of the great thinkers of nineteenth century abolitionism weighed in on exactly this subject and had something relevant to say? I mean... it's not like he was quoting someone on reddit here.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  Fredrick Douglass appears to have liked the term "Negro" [1]: > The form of the negro —[I use the term negro, precisely in the sense that you use the term Anglo Saxon; and I believe, too, that the former will one day be as illustrious as the latter] [...] Would you happen to recall where you may've seen Douglass complaining about it? --- 1: Frederick Douglass, "The claims of the Negro, ethnologically considered", 1854-07-12. PDF-page 16: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbaapc/07900/07900.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbaapc/079...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

feurio 5y ago

> When enough of your peers do it, it feels downright strange to not do it Really? Plenty of my friends on social media and a few work colleagues state their pronouns, but I've never even remotely felt that I need to. Is it perhaps that you are quite suggestible?