5 ms·

Yes, they are all real people but masculinity means changing your own tires unless old or otherwise enfeebled. Otherwise being a man or a woman means nothing bu

by pnf 4y ago

Yes, they are all real people but masculinity means changing your own tires unless old or otherwise enfeebled. Otherwise being a man or a woman means nothing but chromosome delivery mechanisms.

UncleOxidant 4y ago
> but masculinity means changing your own tires Does it? Does it also mean not cooking & cleaning? Never crying? Watching sports? Not changing diapers? Never eating quiche?
- pnf 4y ago
  I've seen plenty of male chefs so not sure what you're getting at. It's not about not doing something, it's about doing something when you can. No man should shy away from changing a diaper or cleaning. What are you even talking about?
  - majkinetor 4y ago
    Sounds about right, but when you reverse that, why wouldn't woman do something that she can? Judging from experience, mostly man do that.
mint2 4y ago
Want the brain surgeon operating on your loved one with his hands later in the day to change his own tire in the snow on the way to the hospital or do you want him to call aaa? Btw the lug nuts are stuck and will need substantial persuading. And it’s on the side of a busy road. Seems extreme to think that guy should change his own tire.
- pnf 4y ago
  If he's a surgeon or a pianist he gets a pass. The exceptions that prove the rule.
  - mint2 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_ru... “ In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.[1]”
    - pnf 4y ago
      I enjoy such etymologies as much as anyone but not sure I agree with you or Fowler's on this one. I mean, if you want to police grammar around HN, fine, but you're going to wear out the tips of your fingers. But aside from that there is also a kind of linguistic luddism in refusing the accept popular usage of idioms. Imagine demanding the same scrupulosity of someone learning English. They would be deprived of such lovelies as "begging the question" without being handed a dog-eared copy of Sophistical Refutations. Or how about "the proof is in the pudding"? No "alright" for you. You must promptly declare yourself when leaving a voicemail for your spouse: "Hello, it is I." So much lost, so little gained. "The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested." I don't find the objection here very credible. The usage you object to is "unfortunately the commonest". The common usage has the advantage of being the most obvious. The valences offered in the article don't seem that significant when it all boils down to what people mean by it, which is pretty well-understood. De gustibus...
      - mint2 4y ago
        Logic isn’t a popularity contest. The reference showed the usage was the logically flawed usage pattern of the term. You are right that nearly 100% of the term’s usage is the logically flawed one, that doesn’t make it persuasive, exactly the opposite: it’s a discourse red flag.
        pnf 4y ago
        Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? Now I got to cut ya. It may be the case that most of the popular usage runs afoul of Fowler. But that was only to point out that, leaving aside some more or less confusing idioms, language doesn't stay put for the grammarians and dictionary writers, embrace change. My point was an aesthetic one. Regardless, abusus non tollit usum. In my own usage, I don't see the logical flaw you do. I gave special leave for surgeons and pianists to leave off changing their own tires. Consider if my post were in a legal code or on a sign. "Surgeons and pianists are exempted from tire-changing duty." Does that make it clearer? How is that different from what you're claiming is the "logically" correct use? I like Bacon's formulation: "In Lawes and Statutes of a compendious stile, extention may be made more freely; but in those Lawes which are punctuall in the enumeration of Cases Particular, more warily: for as exception strengthens the force of a Law, in Cases not excepted; so enumeration weakens it, in Cases not enumerated." I punctually enumerated the limited exceptions (surgeons/pianists), thereby strengthening the force of the compendious rule (change your own tire, if reasonably able) in cases not excepted (able-bodied men). QED. On a meta-argument level, I agree logic isn't a popularity contest but I don't need to point out to you your logical sins of commission here: Appeal to extremes (reductio), appeal to false authority (verecundiam), slippery slope (reductio), ridicule (ridiculum), tradition (antiquitatem), intensional fallacy, false distinction...what else? I would add it's a "discourse red flag" when people confidently try to weaponize logical forms and legal maxims they can't handle. It's like watching a child fighting with a stick he can barely lift. It quickly becomes comical. Maybe you are missing your mistake because you're engaging in open-ended exceptionalism, the form that weakens the rule in cases not enumerated. In other words, because you proposed hypothetical disconfirming evidence (a bit ham-fistedly, tbh), maybe you are mentally carrying that forward in your own mind thinking you could come up with other examples that would further strengthen your case, but without making them explicit (minimal enumeration -- you proposed a list of exceptions with one element). Not very persuasive and actually a particularly obnoxious way to argue which I didn't point out initially because it's so common and has to be worked around in a spirit of charity (pro tip: you can't cavil with every objectionable point, there isn't time). Somehow people think pointing out instances of exceptions wins the day when all it does is suggest the need for enumerated exceptions. It may be a particularly American instinct because of a general bias to universalism (not possible in practice) consistent with ideals of egalitarian justice: One rule to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. The Decalogue is another good example of the American ideal law (Constitutionalism). Theoretically, you should be able to derive an entire legal code from such a short list of universal laws. But then why did they write Leviticus? I guess it wasn't enough. You can also see this spirit at work in the legacy of the English constitutional tradition of 'everything not forbidden is permitted' and the convention debates over whether or not to enumerate the Bill of Rights or fall back on the English tradition, yada yada yada... Thankfully, persuasive speech is a broader field than logic so I won't hold any of this against you. The fact that you like to try to argue credits you with me. All is forgiven. No harm, no Fowler. Ite in pace.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  The lugnuts wouldn't be tight because the precision as a brain surgeon would lead him to using a torque wrench last time he rotated his wheels, and of course there should be a set of gloves with the spare tire. And that's to assume he would have a flat; as if he doesn't check his tires regulary. ~ a software engineer with a set of gloves, a manual air pump, full size spare, and extra flashlight in his 18 year old car.
  - mint2 4y ago
    If someone presents a plausible hypothetical situation, one can choose not to answer but changing it with implausible additional assumptions speaks for itself. surgeons living in areas with winter: fact surgeons driving to work: unremarkable Flat tires happening while driving: it happens Lug nuts being sticky or frozen: it happens Flat on side of busy road: common Nails, bolts and road debris causing flats regardless of tire state: unremarkable Every single, or even a majority, of brain surgeons being avid DIY auto mechanic: not credible. Why was the bit about the software engineer mentioned? Is it to convey that anyone who isn’t the same as that is wrong? Tons of software engineers don’t have those things. Are they doing it wrong?
dragonwriter 4y ago
> masculinity means changing your own tires No, it doesn’t.
mint2 4y ago
According to 90s canned food commercials, being masculine meant eating copious amounts of food that looked like dog food. Masculinity means not being so insecure enough to need broad arbitrary rules to proscribe what being masculine means. A real man may wear a pink flower shirt or he may not. A real man would not care. Same with changing a tire. Sure It’s a useful skill, but it’s totally unrelated to masculinity.
- pnf 4y ago
  It meant having a good appetite and not fussing about your food. What's the problem with that? It seems like you don't get what it means to change your own tire. Try it sometime. It's not about caring about what other people think. It's about having some self-respect and doing for yourself when you can. It should be embarrassing to call another man to do for you what you can reasonably do for yourself.

by pnf 4y ago

Yes, they are all real people but masculinity means changing your own tires unless old or otherwise enfeebled. Otherwise being a man or a woman means nothing but chromosome delivery mechanisms.

UncleOxidant 4y ago

> but masculinity means changing your own tires Does it? Does it also mean not cooking & cleaning? Never crying? Watching sports? Not changing diapers? Never eating quiche?

pnf 4y ago
I've seen plenty of male chefs so not sure what you're getting at. It's not about not doing something, it's about doing something when you can. No man should shy away from changing a diaper or cleaning. What are you even talking about?
- majkinetor 4y ago
  Sounds about right, but when you reverse that, why wouldn't woman do something that she can? Judging from experience, mostly man do that.

mint2 4y ago

Want the brain surgeon operating on your loved one with his hands later in the day to change his own tire in the snow on the way to the hospital or do you want him to call aaa? Btw the lug nuts are stuck and will need substantial persuading. And it’s on the side of a busy road. Seems extreme to think that guy should change his own tire.

pnf 4y ago
If he's a surgeon or a pianist he gets a pass. The exceptions that prove the rule.
- mint2 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_ru... “ In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.[1]”
  - pnf 4y ago
    I enjoy such etymologies as much as anyone but not sure I agree with you or Fowler's on this one. I mean, if you want to police grammar around HN, fine, but you're going to wear out the tips of your fingers. But aside from that there is also a kind of linguistic luddism in refusing the accept popular usage of idioms. Imagine demanding the same scrupulosity of someone learning English. They would be deprived of such lovelies as "begging the question" without being handed a dog-eared copy of Sophistical Refutations. Or how about "the proof is in the pudding"? No "alright" for you. You must promptly declare yourself when leaving a voicemail for your spouse: "Hello, it is I." So much lost, so little gained. "The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested." I don't find the objection here very credible. The usage you object to is "unfortunately the commonest". The common usage has the advantage of being the most obvious. The valences offered in the article don't seem that significant when it all boils down to what people mean by it, which is pretty well-understood. De gustibus...
    - mint2 4y ago
      Logic isn’t a popularity contest. The reference showed the usage was the logically flawed usage pattern of the term. You are right that nearly 100% of the term’s usage is the logically flawed one, that doesn’t make it persuasive, exactly the opposite: it’s a discourse red flag.
      - pnf 4y ago
        Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? Now I got to cut ya. It may be the case that most of the popular usage runs afoul of Fowler. But that was only to point out that, leaving aside some more or less confusing idioms, language doesn't stay put for the grammarians and dictionary writers, embrace change. My point was an aesthetic one. Regardless, abusus non tollit usum. In my own usage, I don't see the logical flaw you do. I gave special leave for surgeons and pianists to leave off changing their own tires. Consider if my post were in a legal code or on a sign. "Surgeons and pianists are exempted from tire-changing duty." Does that make it clearer? How is that different from what you're claiming is the "logically" correct use? I like Bacon's formulation: "In Lawes and Statutes of a compendious stile, extention may be made more freely; but in those Lawes which are punctuall in the enumeration of Cases Particular, more warily: for as exception strengthens the force of a Law, in Cases not excepted; so enumeration weakens it, in Cases not enumerated." I punctually enumerated the limited exceptions (surgeons/pianists), thereby strengthening the force of the compendious rule (change your own tire, if reasonably able) in cases not excepted (able-bodied men). QED. On a meta-argument level, I agree logic isn't a popularity contest but I don't need to point out to you your logical sins of commission here: Appeal to extremes (reductio), appeal to false authority (verecundiam), slippery slope (reductio), ridicule (ridiculum), tradition (antiquitatem), intensional fallacy, false distinction...what else? I would add it's a "discourse red flag" when people confidently try to weaponize logical forms and legal maxims they can't handle. It's like watching a child fighting with a stick he can barely lift. It quickly becomes comical. Maybe you are missing your mistake because you're engaging in open-ended exceptionalism, the form that weakens the rule in cases not enumerated. In other words, because you proposed hypothetical disconfirming evidence (a bit ham-fistedly, tbh), maybe you are mentally carrying that forward in your own mind thinking you could come up with other examples that would further strengthen your case, but without making them explicit (minimal enumeration -- you proposed a list of exceptions with one element). Not very persuasive and actually a particularly obnoxious way to argue which I didn't point out initially because it's so common and has to be worked around in a spirit of charity (pro tip: you can't cavil with every objectionable point, there isn't time). Somehow people think pointing out instances of exceptions wins the day when all it does is suggest the need for enumerated exceptions. It may be a particularly American instinct because of a general bias to universalism (not possible in practice) consistent with ideals of egalitarian justice: One rule to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. The Decalogue is another good example of the American ideal law (Constitutionalism). Theoretically, you should be able to derive an entire legal code from such a short list of universal laws. But then why did they write Leviticus? I guess it wasn't enough. You can also see this spirit at work in the legacy of the English constitutional tradition of 'everything not forbidden is permitted' and the convention debates over whether or not to enumerate the Bill of Rights or fall back on the English tradition, yada yada yada... Thankfully, persuasive speech is a broader field than logic so I won't hold any of this against you. The fact that you like to try to argue credits you with me. All is forgiven. No harm, no Fowler. Ite in pace.
smileysteve 4y ago
The lugnuts wouldn't be tight because the precision as a brain surgeon would lead him to using a torque wrench last time he rotated his wheels, and of course there should be a set of gloves with the spare tire. And that's to assume he would have a flat; as if he doesn't check his tires regulary. ~ a software engineer with a set of gloves, a manual air pump, full size spare, and extra flashlight in his 18 year old car.
- mint2 4y ago
  If someone presents a plausible hypothetical situation, one can choose not to answer but changing it with implausible additional assumptions speaks for itself. surgeons living in areas with winter: fact surgeons driving to work: unremarkable Flat tires happening while driving: it happens Lug nuts being sticky or frozen: it happens Flat on side of busy road: common Nails, bolts and road debris causing flats regardless of tire state: unremarkable Every single, or even a majority, of brain surgeons being avid DIY auto mechanic: not credible. Why was the bit about the software engineer mentioned? Is it to convey that anyone who isn’t the same as that is wrong? Tons of software engineers don’t have those things. Are they doing it wrong?

dragonwriter 4y ago

> masculinity means changing your own tires No, it doesn’t.

mint2 4y ago

According to 90s canned food commercials, being masculine meant eating copious amounts of food that looked like dog food. Masculinity means not being so insecure enough to need broad arbitrary rules to proscribe what being masculine means. A real man may wear a pink flower shirt or he may not. A real man would not care. Same with changing a tire. Sure It’s a useful skill, but it’s totally unrelated to masculinity.

pnf 4y ago
It meant having a good appetite and not fussing about your food. What's the problem with that? It seems like you don't get what it means to change your own tire. Try it sometime. It's not about caring about what other people think. It's about having some self-respect and doing for yourself when you can. It should be embarrassing to call another man to do for you what you can reasonably do for yourself.