5 ms·
That's too close to the spelling of the word Man, which would be exclusionary of the woman gender. Let's call it a Human's degree. Or better yet, a Being's deg
by kleene_op 4y ago
That's too close to the spelling of the word Man, which would be exclusionary of the woman gender.
Let's call it a Human's degree.
Or better yet, a Being's degree. Let's not be speciesists.
- hef19898 4y agoScentient, please. But let's not use the New Order's classification of species as scentient or not.
- quickthrower2 4y agoOr elementist (Silicon vs. carbon)
- jazzabeanie 4y agoHuman has the word man in it, so let’s use huperson
- TeMPOraL 4y ago"Terran" is an established term.
- pc86 4y agoI think you missed the joke, friend.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThat's exclusionary of beings not native to Terra.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoThat's not going to be an issue. There are zero such beings known so far, no hard evidence they even exist, and we're not going to find or create ones any time soon - the same people who engage in language policing also currently dislike space exploration for various ideological reasons.
- skjoldr 4y agoWell the colonizers didn't know that Native Americans existed before landing in America, and look what happened. We must prevent any and all such occurrences in our interplanetary future by only using a non-specieist vocabulary.
- kamma4434 4y agoIt’s so obvious that if colonizers had used inclusive language, everybody would have lived in peace. Though maybe labelling them ‘colonizers’ and not ‘welcome guests’ was only the first of a set of micro aggressions that precipitated the situation.
- EdiX 4y ago> That's not going to be an issue. There are zero such beings known so far Maybe the reason there are zero openly non-terran (or, preferrably, differently planeted) folks is attutides like yours. Think about it.
- jkingsbery 4y ago> for various ideological reasons They are opposed to colonies wherever they might be, even lunar colonies.
- tosc 4y agoThis is gaslighting the lived experience of those who have reported abduction by aliens.
- MrYellowP 4y agoYou have no argument there. The same people who care about butchering language and destroying society are the same people who don't care about facts or what's real.
- aliswe 4y agoWhat do you identify as, though?
- anshumankmr 4y ago
- jkingsbery 4y agoBut "person" has the word "son" in it, and that's gendered. Better go with huperchild.
- akiselev 4y agoHuperchild has the words “per child” in it, which is exclusionary to people who choose not to worsen overpopulation by not procreating. How about huperperson? Uh wait, that’s recursi- political correctness overflow error.
- Pigalowda 4y agoHuman ends in “man” and has already been regarded as offensive to “people” or “persons”. Being when referenced to an organism is only used in context of “human” (offensive) or an “alien” (offensive). Anything that is referential to an offensive word must be struck as well. No word should ever create a mental reference to a banned word nor should a substitute word create a mental suspicion or guess of what the original offensive word was. A new vocabulary must be formed -newspeak if you will.
- onetokeoverthe 4y ago
- agentwiggles 4y ago> Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoYou're discriminating against non-beings.