|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2023 10:24:21 GMT
How to spot "duper's delight".
There are few real world examples here:
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 21, 2023 10:25:16 GMT
You stick to any definition you like, Bubs. I will. I don't need your position, H-erm-y. Good man! |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 21, 2023 10:48:25 GMT
If you have a friend called Michael who doesn't like being called Mike or Mickey it would be pretty rude to use either despite him asking you not to.
It's a simple matter of politeness to address a person how they would like to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2023 11:07:26 GMT
If you have a friend called Michael who doesn't like being called Mike or Mickey it would be pretty rude to use either despite him asking you not to. It's a simple matter of politeness to address a person how they would like to be addressed. Yes and no. In the context of personal friendship, this usually appears in the form of an offer to deviate rather than an instruction. If you generate offence by using someone's name then you may well have walked into a neurosis or manipulation situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 21, 2023 11:42:44 GMT
If you have a friend called Michael who doesn't like being called Mike or Mickey it would be pretty rude to use either despite him asking you not to. It's a simple matter of politeness to address a person how they would like to be addressed. Yes and no. In the context of personal friendship, this usually appears in the form of an offer to deviate rather than an instruction. If you generate offence by using someone's name then you may well have walked into a neurosis or manipulation situation. I don't agree. On a previous unmoderated and very confrontational US forum I used to use you could tell my friends or enemies by whether they said Monte or Monty. The more I corrected people the more they refused to spell it the way I preferred. I suspect it's very similar for people who state their preferred pronoun. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2023 11:59:45 GMT
Yes and no. In the context of personal friendship, this usually appears in the form of an offer to deviate rather than an instruction. If you generate offence by using someone's name then you may well have walked into a neurosis or manipulation situation. I don't agree. On a previous unmoderated and very confrontational US forum I used to use you could tell my friends or enemies by whether they said Monte or Monty. The more I corrected people the more they refused to spell it the way I preferred. I don't see this reinforces your original claim. You made an issue over the exact spelling of a nickname and people reacted pretty predictably. If you were busy making it a make or break issue, you were just just introducing the grit of nagging to their lives and they returned the irritation. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 21, 2023 12:44:10 GMT
I don't agree. On a previous unmoderated and very confrontational US forum I used to use you could tell my friends or enemies by whether they said Monte or Monty. The more I corrected people the more they refused to spell it the way I preferred. I don't see this reinforces your original claim. You made an issue over the exact spelling of a nickname and people reacted pretty predictably. If you were busy making it a make or break issue, you were just just introducing the grit of nagging to their lives and they returned the irritation. The point being that people were deliberately mis-spelling it in order to troll, much as people who refuse to use the requested pronoun do. It takes no effort to call someone she rather than he but they'd rather troll someone and get into an argument about biology. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 21, 2023 12:52:29 GMT
Back to the beginning. I agree but words have to have real meanings and definitions and that largely depends on common usage. In specialist areas those involved agree the meanings, in general everyday life it is the general populace. It is not down to a particular group to define woman it is the general usage that creates the meaning and has done since time immemorial. Words can be deprecated by general agreement and by law but their meaning has not changed. Making words mean that which most people believe they do not mean is directly out of the Soviet playbook and being forced to accept them and use them is part of that process. Yes, but the general usage has been changing. In many sections of society it has already changed. There is more than one usage now. The Soviet playbook? As I've mentioned several times, the word 'insane' once included gay people. The word now excludes gay people. Language is mutable. It changes with social mores. If you don't like the new usage of the word woman, just continue using the one you're most comfortable with. But there is no new common usage of the word woman there is only the old common usage word. Some are trying to make it different and that is what is riling most people. That is what is from the Soviet playbook, "this is what this word means now, feel free not to use it but beware of the repercussions if you do not, like losing your job". |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 21, 2023 12:57:06 GMT
Yes, but the general usage has been changing. In many sections of society it has already changed. There is more than one usage now. The Soviet playbook? As I've mentioned several times, the word 'insane' once included gay people. The word now excludes gay people. Language is mutable. It changes with social mores. If you don't like the new usage of the word woman, just continue using the one you're most comfortable with. But there is no new common usage of the word woman there is only the old common usage word. Some are trying to make it different and that is what is riling most people. That is what is from the Soviet playbook, "this is what this word means now, feel free not to use it but beware of the repercussions if you do not, like losing your job". You can hardly blame the Left if it's that easy to fire people. They've been fighting for greater job security for years. I've repeatedly pointed out that the meaning of words can change, that the word insane once included gay people. If you think the change in the meaning of the word insane is 'Soviet style', then so be it. Most people welcome it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 21, 2023 13:05:19 GMT
But there is no new common usage of the word woman there is only the old common usage word. Some are trying to make it different and that is what is riling most people. That is what is from the Soviet playbook, "this is what this word means now, feel free not to use it but beware of the repercussions if you do not, like losing your job". You can hardly blame the Left if it's that easy to fire people. They've been fighting for greater job security for years. I've repeatedly pointed out that the meaning of words can change, that the word insane once included gay people. If you think the change in the meaning of the word insane is 'Soviet style', then so be it. Most people welcome it. They have been demanding people who do not agree with their viewpoint should be sacked, Simone Clark ring a bell? There are many more. Hopenothate spend much of their time demanding the sacking of people for having views different from them. EDIT you may have repeatedly pointed out something but it is not comparable, insane dropped from common usage over time as Gay rights increased. Why you would keep on comparing a natural event with the wilful decision to impose a definition of woman on a reluctant public I do not know. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2023 13:07:00 GMT
I don't see this reinforces your original claim. You made an issue over the exact spelling of a nickname and people reacted pretty predictably. If you were busy making it a make or break issue, you were just just introducing the grit of nagging to their lives and they returned the irritation. The point being that people were deliberately mis-spelling it in order to troll, much as people who refuse to use the requested pronoun do. It takes no effort to call someone she rather than he but they'd rather troll someone and get into an argument about biology. But nothing you are saying is demonstrating that point. My first point was that, if using someone's name causes offence to them, then you are probably talking to someone with 'issues'. You replied that you disagreed and gave me an example of people misspelling a nickname and someone taking offence. The world is not going to go all that far to meet 'special requirements', it has other things to do. If you insist on special requirements then you are likely causing irritation. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 21, 2023 13:11:03 GMT
The point being that people were deliberately mis-spelling it in order to troll, much as people who refuse to use the requested pronoun do. It takes no effort to call someone she rather than he but they'd rather troll someone and get into an argument about biology. But nothing you are saying is demonstrating that point. My first point was that, if using someone's name causes offence to them, then you are probably talking to someone with 'issues'. You replied that you disagreed and gave me an example of people misspelling a nickname and someone taking offence. The world is not going to go all that far to meet 'special requirements', it has other things to do. If you insist on special requirements then you are likely causing irritation. If Michael asks you not to call him Mike but you continue to do so it's not Michael who is being a dickhead. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 21, 2023 13:18:33 GMT
You can hardly blame the Left if it's that easy to fire people. They've been fighting for greater job security for years. I've repeatedly pointed out that the meaning of words can change, that the word insane once included gay people. If you think the change in the meaning of the word insane is 'Soviet style', then so be it. Most people welcome it. They have been demanding people who do not agree with their viewpoint should be sacked, Simone Clark ring a bell? There are many more. Hopenothate spend much of their time demanding the sacking of people for having views different from them. EDIT you may have repeatedly pointed out something but it is not comparable, insane dropped from common usage over time as Gay rights increased. Why you would keep on comparing a natural event with the wilful decision to impose a definition of woman on a reluctant public I do not know. Whose fault is it if employers can sack people on a whim? It's not the Left's fault. The Right wants a regulation-free Singapore-on-Thames where employers can do anything they please. You reap what you sow, Sandy. You can't have protections against being 'cancelled' and a regulation-free environment. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2023 13:39:31 GMT
But nothing you are saying is demonstrating that point. My first point was that, if using someone's name causes offence to them, then you are probably talking to someone with 'issues'. You replied that you disagreed and gave me an example of people misspelling a nickname and someone taking offence. The world is not going to go all that far to meet 'special requirements', it has other things to do. If you insist on special requirements then you are likely causing irritation. If Michael asks you not to call him Mike but you continue to do so it's not Michael who is being a dickhead. I disagree. Michael is being a dickhead. This is an invitation not an instruction. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 21, 2023 13:47:40 GMT
But nothing you are saying is demonstrating that point. My first point was that, if using someone's name causes offence to them, then you are probably talking to someone with 'issues'. You replied that you disagreed and gave me an example of people misspelling a nickname and someone taking offence. The world is not going to go all that far to meet 'special requirements', it has other things to do. If you insist on special requirements then you are likely causing irritation. If Michael asks you not to call him Mike but you continue to do so it's not Michael who is being a dickhead. What if Michael asks you to call him Gloria? |
|
