5 ms·

There was a big fight on Twitter last month because of a comment he made 3 years ago (https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814 https://github.com/Sereni

There was a big fight on Twitter last month because of a comment he made 3 years ago (https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814 https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814). I think that's closely related.

Spivak 2y ago
This is such a weird thread, sure it's a nit but grammatically a person of unknown sex should be either "he or she" or "they." And the latter is by far the preferred form by English writers regardless of political affiliation. It didn't become a political thing until Andreas made it political. It would have taken two seconds to be like "+1 Good catch man, merged."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- skipkey 2y ago
  It could be an age thing. When I was taught grammar 40 plus years ago, for someone of indeterminate sex, “he” was taught as always appropriate, “he or she” was a somewhat clunky alternative that was situationally appropriate where you were stressing the gender neutrality, and “they” was just simply bad grammar which would get you bad marks. I’m honestly not sure when that changed.
  - commodoreboxer 2y ago
    "They" as a gender neutral singular pronoun has never been bad grammar, and has been accepted in common use for many hundreds of years.
    - LoganDark 2y ago
      A fun fact I learned just recently is that even Shakespeare used singular "they": http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.h... (and even singular "themselves"!) which puts to rest approximately every argument I've ever seen against it.
      - commodoreboxer 2y ago
        It was also used in the King James Bible, published in 1611.
        LoganDark 2y ago
        Interesting. Shakespeare had first used singular 'they' in 1594, so not even that long before.
      - gaganyaan 2y ago
        Because this often ends up with people talking past each other, never until a few years ago did anyone use singular they for a known, specific person. Shakespeare used it for unknown or nonspecific people.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      It's been qualified as “bad grammar” by many people over the years though.
    - jml7c5 2y ago
      In casual use, yes. In formal writing, the broad switch to acceptance of singular "they" is only about 15 years old. Up until that point it's the sort of thing that would be flagged by an editor, or lose you marks in an English paper.
      - commodoreboxer 2y ago
        I'd be shocked if that were universal over that time, given that even formal language has undergone many changes in attitude. Over hundreds of years, I bet that in many times and places it has not considered it a problem, particularly given its use in the King James Bible.
    - account42 2y ago
      And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    “They” is particularly convenient when discussing about people over the internet, because not only we don't have to assume the person's gender, but we don't have to assume if it's an individual or a group either. And tbh using gender in pronouns is artificially annoying, and it's good to see English has a way out of it, like it got rid of giving genders to common objects like most European languages (“Non, it's La chaise, chair is feminine in French” -_-').
    - __float 2y ago
      Languages hold complexity in different areas, but that doesn't make it artificial. Grammatical gender (and noun classes more generally) may seem redundant, but redundancy in language is quite common. It helps disambiguate, as it turns out speech (especially, but writing too) is a very lossy method of communicating. (You seem perfectly happy distinguishing between animate/inanimate nouns and choosing "it" or "he/she/they" -- that's a difference not all languages make, but should we get rid of it in English too?)
      - arcxi 2y ago
        1. "it" does not distinguish between animate and inanimate nouns: The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. — Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland But he [Jesus] said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid." — John 6:20 2. gender distinction is artificial because it's not based on anything real, rather it's based on whether the "vibes" that a person (or an inanimate object in European languages) that you're referring to gives off are more feminine or more masculine. this "redundancy" creates all sorts of trouble for folks who are not comfortable with the "vibes" society assignes them with a particular gender at a given moment. the problem here is not that the speech is lossy, but that this particular "feature" of language demands that you convey the person's identity when it's almost always irrelevant in a way that's exclusive to gender (thank God nationalism wasn't invented when the language was forming)
        __float 2y ago
        1. Yes, as with many "rules" in language there are exceptions. I would find it a bit odd to refer to a baby as "it" in (current) English, though I do admit there are some situations where it wouldn't feel as out of place. In my read of the Bible quote, it's not really referring to a person as "it" in the same way. 2. Grammatical gender has nothing to do with the "vibes" of an inanimate object - it's quite arbitrary, really. The problem you're associating here is much more with gender in humans, but we were talking about the grammatical construct applied to objects (like a chair as the grandparent mentioned).
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Indeed. I was taught very directly that the singular pronouns were he, she, and it. The plurals were we, you, they. So grammatically if you were referring to a singular person of unknown sex, then you should use "it" . Obviously using the pronoun "it" at some point became offensive, so is highly not recommended. But, (probably after having drilled into my head repeatedly that "they" is a plural) it seems very incorrect to my ears when "they" is used to describe a singular person. It also unfortunately comes with ambiguity sometimes. I've had misunderstandings where I used they as a singular pronoun to describe someone of unknown gender, and the person I was talking to took it as a reference to a plural, which at best creates confusion, at worst misleads. Language is an incredibly hard problem, and it certainly doesn't help that as youth, we are drilled with supposedly objective truth regarding language, when in reality it is far less defined and more nebulous than than the teachers would have us believe. The generational gaps can already be tricky to navigate. Having different ideas of objective truth, especially regarding language, certainly does not help.
LoganDark 2y ago
[flagged]
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Everything is political, right?
commodoreboxer 2y ago
How is that related? What does it have to do with Rust? If anything, I'd say it shows that social media (and microblogging platforms like Twitter and Mastodon in particular) tend to be politically charged, toxic, and dogmatic.
- irusensei 2y ago
  I can totally imagine someone from the Ladybird project reaching out for the Rust community channels and being harassed because of that silly PR.
- LoganDark 2y ago
  I think it has nothing to do with Rust; probably someone first found it who just so happened to be part of the Rust community, and since the Rust community is full of 'the type of person who would be offended by such an interaction' (basically any queer person) there was naturally an explosion about it.
bobbyskelton41 2y ago
Seeing this right now single-handedly turned me off from the project. Of all the possible (and more plausible) conclusions that the maintainer could have had, they deduced it to be political (which is arguable) and immediately became extremely defensive. Apparently women don't exist. It's an absolute failure of one's responsibilities as a maintainer -- arguably as a person -- to treat someone's goodwill with such disregard.

Spivak 2y ago

This is such a weird thread, sure it's a nit but grammatically a person of unknown sex should be either "he or she" or "they." And the latter is by far the preferred form by English writers regardless of political affiliation. It didn't become a political thing until Andreas made it political. It would have taken two seconds to be like "+1 Good catch man, merged."

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
skipkey 2y ago
It could be an age thing. When I was taught grammar 40 plus years ago, for someone of indeterminate sex, “he” was taught as always appropriate, “he or she” was a somewhat clunky alternative that was situationally appropriate where you were stressing the gender neutrality, and “they” was just simply bad grammar which would get you bad marks. I’m honestly not sure when that changed.
- commodoreboxer 2y ago
  "They" as a gender neutral singular pronoun has never been bad grammar, and has been accepted in common use for many hundreds of years.
  - LoganDark 2y ago
    A fun fact I learned just recently is that even Shakespeare used singular "they": http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.h... (and even singular "themselves"!) which puts to rest approximately every argument I've ever seen against it.
    - commodoreboxer 2y ago
      It was also used in the King James Bible, published in 1611.
      - LoganDark 2y ago
        Interesting. Shakespeare had first used singular 'they' in 1594, so not even that long before.
    - gaganyaan 2y ago
      Because this often ends up with people talking past each other, never until a few years ago did anyone use singular they for a known, specific person. Shakespeare used it for unknown or nonspecific people.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    It's been qualified as “bad grammar” by many people over the years though.
  - jml7c5 2y ago
    In casual use, yes. In formal writing, the broad switch to acceptance of singular "they" is only about 15 years old. Up until that point it's the sort of thing that would be flagged by an editor, or lose you marks in an English paper.
    - commodoreboxer 2y ago
      I'd be shocked if that were universal over that time, given that even formal language has undergone many changes in attitude. Over hundreds of years, I bet that in many times and places it has not considered it a problem, particularly given its use in the King James Bible.
  - account42 2y ago
    And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  “They” is particularly convenient when discussing about people over the internet, because not only we don't have to assume the person's gender, but we don't have to assume if it's an individual or a group either. And tbh using gender in pronouns is artificially annoying, and it's good to see English has a way out of it, like it got rid of giving genders to common objects like most European languages (“Non, it's La chaise, chair is feminine in French” -_-').
  - __float 2y ago
    Languages hold complexity in different areas, but that doesn't make it artificial. Grammatical gender (and noun classes more generally) may seem redundant, but redundancy in language is quite common. It helps disambiguate, as it turns out speech (especially, but writing too) is a very lossy method of communicating. (You seem perfectly happy distinguishing between animate/inanimate nouns and choosing "it" or "he/she/they" -- that's a difference not all languages make, but should we get rid of it in English too?)
    - arcxi 2y ago
      1. "it" does not distinguish between animate and inanimate nouns: The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. — Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland But he [Jesus] said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid." — John 6:20 2. gender distinction is artificial because it's not based on anything real, rather it's based on whether the "vibes" that a person (or an inanimate object in European languages) that you're referring to gives off are more feminine or more masculine. this "redundancy" creates all sorts of trouble for folks who are not comfortable with the "vibes" society assignes them with a particular gender at a given moment. the problem here is not that the speech is lossy, but that this particular "feature" of language demands that you convey the person's identity when it's almost always irrelevant in a way that's exclusive to gender (thank God nationalism wasn't invented when the language was forming)
      - __float 2y ago
        1. Yes, as with many "rules" in language there are exceptions. I would find it a bit odd to refer to a baby as "it" in (current) English, though I do admit there are some situations where it wouldn't feel as out of place. In my read of the Bible quote, it's not really referring to a person as "it" in the same way. 2. Grammatical gender has nothing to do with the "vibes" of an inanimate object - it's quite arbitrary, really. The problem you're associating here is much more with gender in humans, but we were talking about the grammatical construct applied to objects (like a chair as the grandparent mentioned).
- freedomben 2y ago
  Indeed. I was taught very directly that the singular pronouns were he, she, and it. The plurals were we, you, they. So grammatically if you were referring to a singular person of unknown sex, then you should use "it" . Obviously using the pronoun "it" at some point became offensive, so is highly not recommended. But, (probably after having drilled into my head repeatedly that "they" is a plural) it seems very incorrect to my ears when "they" is used to describe a singular person. It also unfortunately comes with ambiguity sometimes. I've had misunderstandings where I used they as a singular pronoun to describe someone of unknown gender, and the person I was talking to took it as a reference to a plural, which at best creates confusion, at worst misleads. Language is an incredibly hard problem, and it certainly doesn't help that as youth, we are drilled with supposedly objective truth regarding language, when in reality it is far less defined and more nebulous than than the teachers would have us believe. The generational gaps can already be tricky to navigate. Having different ideas of objective truth, especially regarding language, certainly does not help.

LoganDark 2y ago

[flagged]

mardifoufs 2y ago
Everything is political, right?

commodoreboxer 2y ago

How is that related? What does it have to do with Rust? If anything, I'd say it shows that social media (and microblogging platforms like Twitter and Mastodon in particular) tend to be politically charged, toxic, and dogmatic.

irusensei 2y ago
I can totally imagine someone from the Ladybird project reaching out for the Rust community channels and being harassed because of that silly PR.
LoganDark 2y ago
I think it has nothing to do with Rust; probably someone first found it who just so happened to be part of the Rust community, and since the Rust community is full of 'the type of person who would be offended by such an interaction' (basically any queer person) there was naturally an explosion about it.

bobbyskelton41 2y ago

Seeing this right now single-handedly turned me off from the project. Of all the possible (and more plausible) conclusions that the maintainer could have had, they deduced it to be political (which is arguable) and immediately became extremely defensive. Apparently women don't exist. It's an absolute failure of one's responsibilities as a maintainer -- arguably as a person -- to treat someone's goodwill with such disregard.