3 ms·

Considering that Atwood recently claimed to have interviewed George Orwell by way of a medium - I'd say they're not a great person to look to for thought leader

by Festro 5y ago

Considering that Atwood recently claimed to have interviewed George Orwell by way of a medium - I'd say they're not a great person to look to for thought leadership. Unless they were joking, hard to read internet comments and all that. https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1450249592168140801 https://twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/145024959216814080...

leephillips 5y ago
First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece? Secondly, come on. It’s not “hard to read” that she probably doesn’t literally believe in talking to dead people. It’s an obvious literary device. Thirdly, what kind of loser would be looking for “thought leadership”?
- Festro 5y ago
  "First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece?" What on earth are you on about?? Second - Yep, I admit that's a possibility. Third - Well, the article you linked lauds Atwood as a leader in the debate about the use of gendered terms - going as far as to call her a 'handmaiden' akin to the ones in some of her works. So, the 'loser' would be the article author? I wouldn't call them a loser though. EDIT: I figured out your mental jump on the first point. You think that my use of 'they/them' is an "erasure of women". Not at all, I just wasn't referring to a sexed or gendered aspect of Atwood, to invoke their sex or gender would mean I was making a point based on those features, which I'm not.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    “What on earth are you on about??” → “they” And if, as you admit, you are entirely unsure of her intended meaning, the decent thing to so it to interpret her charitably, instead of jumping to the most damning possible interpretation.
    - Festro 5y ago
      Bit of a hypocrite aren't you? You thought I was 'erasing women' by using 'they'.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        Not a hypocrite. Didn’t “think” it. By bending over backwards to avoid normal English for the purpose of neutering a woman, you were literally erasing women.
        Festro 5y ago
        Didn't bend over backwards - was quite easy to use neutral terminology when the sex or gender of a person is irrelevant to the point being made. 'Normal English' doesn't exist as a stable point that can be reliably referenced. Even the OED is constantly updated. Language is a constantly changing thing. This is an example of that. Plenty of languages use gender neutral pronouns all the time - they laugh at this kind of debate. "you were literally erasing women" shit. Call the police. I assume that means I've murdered someone? Didn't realise I had magical powers like that. People can use language how they please. Call people 'her' or 'she' if you think it's relevant. If you want to be inclusive and not be sexist then maybe go for a neutral term. Context matters remember - a public body should likely opt for the latter. A friend who knows how someone identifies could freely go for the former.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Ketchup no conversant they if if hdfhvhvkjsf. Don’t you agree?
        Festro 5y ago
        Great example of making a ridiculous argument, a type of logical fallacy. What you've done here is make what you're saying incomprehensible to others. Whereas you still knew my meaning when I used 'they'. For some reason you thought this would bolster your argument. You've used language how you please but have lost all its meaning. It's no longer language at that point. You still got my meaning though.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    > invoke their sex or gender would mean I was making a point based on those features No, it wouldn’t. It would mean you were writing comprehensible English. You’re not “invoking” anything by using “she” to refer to a woman in the third person. That’s what the pronoun is for. Your use of “they” is weird and jarring.
    - Festro 5y ago
      I'm invoking their gender, needlessly. A mark of 'good' English is a lack of unnecessary detail - or so I've heard. I don't remark on Atwood's age, or skin colour when referring to them. Why invoke their sex or gender? YOU find it weird and jarring. But don't worry even if you don't get used to it plenty of other people are fine with it. Generationally speaking, this appears to be a gradual shift that can't be stopped.
      - handrous 5y ago
        > A mark of 'good' English is a lack of unnecessary detail - or so I've heard. Good English is largely about making choices least likely to confuse or annoy one's audience.
        Festro 5y ago
        Nobody can predict what will confuse or annoy their audience. True that people will try not to go out of their way to confuse or annoy their audience. If gender neutral pronouns confuse or annoy people I really don't think that's the author's fault. That's far more on the ignorance of the reader. Do people who don't understand gender neutral pronouns get similarly confused and annoyed when they see a word they haven't seen before? That's a frustrating existence if true.
        handrous 5y ago
        > Nobody can predict what will confuse or annoy their audience. Perfectly? No. Good writers manage to do it most of the time, nonetheless. "Do whatever's most-normal" is a good rule to follow, absent anything else. If that rule had been followed, we wouldn't have this whole unfortunate thread. > Do people who don't understand gender neutral pronouns get similarly confused and annoyed when they see a word they haven't seen before? That's a frustrating existence if true. This is about breaking expectations, not failure to understand gender-neutral pronouns. You applied them in an unusual context.

by Festro 5y ago

leephillips 5y ago

First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece? Secondly, come on. It’s not “hard to read” that she probably doesn’t literally believe in talking to dead people. It’s an obvious literary device. Thirdly, what kind of loser would be looking for “thought leadership”?

Festro 5y ago
"First of all, I’m pretty sure Atwood is an actual human individual author, and not one of these author committees with a collective pen name. Or are you on board with the erasure of women that is the subject of this piece?" What on earth are you on about?? Second - Yep, I admit that's a possibility. Third - Well, the article you linked lauds Atwood as a leader in the debate about the use of gendered terms - going as far as to call her a 'handmaiden' akin to the ones in some of her works. So, the 'loser' would be the article author? I wouldn't call them a loser though. EDIT: I figured out your mental jump on the first point. You think that my use of 'they/them' is an "erasure of women". Not at all, I just wasn't referring to a sexed or gendered aspect of Atwood, to invoke their sex or gender would mean I was making a point based on those features, which I'm not.
- leephillips 5y ago
  “What on earth are you on about??” → “they” And if, as you admit, you are entirely unsure of her intended meaning, the decent thing to so it to interpret her charitably, instead of jumping to the most damning possible interpretation.
  - Festro 5y ago
    Bit of a hypocrite aren't you? You thought I was 'erasing women' by using 'they'.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Not a hypocrite. Didn’t “think” it. By bending over backwards to avoid normal English for the purpose of neutering a woman, you were literally erasing women.
      - Festro 5y ago
        Didn't bend over backwards - was quite easy to use neutral terminology when the sex or gender of a person is irrelevant to the point being made. 'Normal English' doesn't exist as a stable point that can be reliably referenced. Even the OED is constantly updated. Language is a constantly changing thing. This is an example of that. Plenty of languages use gender neutral pronouns all the time - they laugh at this kind of debate. "you were literally erasing women" shit. Call the police. I assume that means I've murdered someone? Didn't realise I had magical powers like that. People can use language how they please. Call people 'her' or 'she' if you think it's relevant. If you want to be inclusive and not be sexist then maybe go for a neutral term. Context matters remember - a public body should likely opt for the latter. A friend who knows how someone identifies could freely go for the former.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Ketchup no conversant they if if hdfhvhvkjsf. Don’t you agree?
        Festro 5y ago
        Great example of making a ridiculous argument, a type of logical fallacy. What you've done here is make what you're saying incomprehensible to others. Whereas you still knew my meaning when I used 'they'. For some reason you thought this would bolster your argument. You've used language how you please but have lost all its meaning. It's no longer language at that point. You still got my meaning though.
- leephillips 5y ago
  > invoke their sex or gender would mean I was making a point based on those features No, it wouldn’t. It would mean you were writing comprehensible English. You’re not “invoking” anything by using “she” to refer to a woman in the third person. That’s what the pronoun is for. Your use of “they” is weird and jarring.
  - Festro 5y ago
    I'm invoking their gender, needlessly. A mark of 'good' English is a lack of unnecessary detail - or so I've heard. I don't remark on Atwood's age, or skin colour when referring to them. Why invoke their sex or gender? YOU find it weird and jarring. But don't worry even if you don't get used to it plenty of other people are fine with it. Generationally speaking, this appears to be a gradual shift that can't be stopped.
    - handrous 5y ago
      > A mark of 'good' English is a lack of unnecessary detail - or so I've heard. Good English is largely about making choices least likely to confuse or annoy one's audience.
      - Festro 5y ago
        Nobody can predict what will confuse or annoy their audience. True that people will try not to go out of their way to confuse or annoy their audience. If gender neutral pronouns confuse or annoy people I really don't think that's the author's fault. That's far more on the ignorance of the reader. Do people who don't understand gender neutral pronouns get similarly confused and annoyed when they see a word they haven't seen before? That's a frustrating existence if true.
        handrous 5y ago
        > Nobody can predict what will confuse or annoy their audience. Perfectly? No. Good writers manage to do it most of the time, nonetheless. "Do whatever's most-normal" is a good rule to follow, absent anything else. If that rule had been followed, we wouldn't have this whole unfortunate thread. > Do people who don't understand gender neutral pronouns get similarly confused and annoyed when they see a word they haven't seen before? That's a frustrating existence if true. This is about breaking expectations, not failure to understand gender-neutral pronouns. You applied them in an unusual context.