But Where Are You Really From?

[Deleted member 28]

France, dear boy. Do keep up.

Why would I want to live in France?

 

[newfhouse]

Why would I want to live in France?

Your apparent view of the desirability of language being immutable is reminiscent of the Académie Française, as alluded to by @winjim in the post I quoted. I combined that thought with the “If you like it so much why don’t you go and live there” trope so favoured by flag waving Little Englanders.

“And some fell on stony ground…”

 

[winjim]

View: https://youtu.be/WEGzvZ85dgs

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not sure about 'deserve'. Personally I'm broadly happy for the category 'women' to include cis women, trans women, and trans men depending on context. I'm also broadly happy for the category 'men' to include cis men, trans men and trans women.

Thereby proving that you don't actually think transwomen are women because in some contexts, apparently, you acknowledge they are men. At least I'm consistent. They are always men; in fact being a man is the only criteria for being a transwoman.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Your apparent view of the desirability of language being immutable is reminiscent of the Académie Française, as alluded to by @winjim in the post I quoted. I combined that thought with the “If you like it so much why don’t you go and live there” trope so favoured by flag waving Little Englanders.

“And some fell on stony ground…”

I think you may have been on something here fella as I haven't a clue what you're referring to, be a good sort and point me in the direction of my apparent view.

 

[newfhouse]

I think you may have been on something here fella as I haven't a clue what you're referring to, be a good sort and point me in the direction of my apparent view.

If you don’t know what you’ve written I certainly can’t be bothered to go looking for specific posts to quote. I have neither the patience nor the tolerance that @mudsticks displays.

 

[Mugshot]

 

[theclaud]

I was gonna say that, it was well and truly drummed into me at school. Words mean whatever we mean them to mean. The English language has no rules, only conventions, we are not French.

To be fair, the French tendency to prescribe preferred language forms and proscribe others doesn't actually work. Which is why stuff like 'le weekend' is alive and well.

 

[theclaud]

What, pray, am I making up?

Intrigued of Tunbridge Wells

You actually use Teletext??

 

[theclaud]

Here's the definition of 'dictionary' from the Cambridge Dictionary itself.

"A1
a book that contains a list of words in alphabetical order and explains their meanings, or gives a word for them in another language; an electronic product giving similar information on a computer, smartphone, etc.:"

Using their own definition of what they themselves are, they have explained the meaning of 'Woman' to now include men. The word Woman has never included men. The fact that a very small number of people want it to does not make it so. There's no additional meaning to 'woman' other than 'adult human female' that doesn't make a nonsense of the concept of definitions.

This might be the finest example of circular reasoning since Winnie the Pooh proved the infallibility of Owl.

 

[theclaud]

words that are grounded in material reality

Words aren't. Sorry.

 

[Unkraut]

You actually use Teletext??

Because it's there. 'Tis a bit quaint but useful summary of information from the local TV station.

 

[slowmotion]

To be fair, the French tendency to prescribe preferred language forms and proscribe others doesn't actually work. Which is why stuff like 'le weekend' is alive and well.

But isn't that the real point? The whole of this thread has spiralled into a rabbit hole of daft professional linguistic analysis. The he/she/they on the Clapham Omnibus know perfectly well how to communicate and clear up misunderstandings without seeking to take offence.

BTW, I was raised in Winchester but born in Gloucester, and my birth name isn't slowmotion.

 

[Unkraut]

Wow that's quite a reach - you don't like the idea of anti discrimination policies because a few (but by no means all) people who fight discrimination identify as Marxists.

I have never remotely hinted I disapprove of policies to outlaw discrimination. As far as I am concerned there is one human race. Over time it has evolved to produce different ethnicities with superficial differences. Discimination on account of this is wrong. That said I'm against setting aside anti-discrimination policies for politically correct reasons, for example, mandating quotas of minorities or women where in effect you discriminate against a majority or men on account of their ethnicity or gender. The idea might be to try to undo past injustices, but if discrimination is wrong then it's wrong.

Once something like true equality is achieved we'll no longer have a need to fight this unjust discrimination.

Equality of opportunity which is good, or equality of outcome, which can be bad? Whilst I think everyone should be treated equally under the law, for example, people are not equal in what they do or what they contribute to the common good (or otherwise) and this should be recognised.

But there is still plenty of discriminatory words and speech used, that come across as really not giving a toss about discrimination such as racism.

Such as the incident that sparked off this thread.

We don't know with any certainty the incident that spawned this thread was racism. Because of this I still think it might have been better to deal with the problem between the parties concerned and not the world of social media. Even if racism was involved, I wonder if the apology was sincere or given to placate the world of the twitter mob.

 

[theclaud]

But isn't that the real point? The whole of this thread has spiralled into a rabbit hole of daft professional linguistic analysis. The he/she/they on the Clapham Omnibus know perfectly well how to communicate and clear up misunderstandings without seeking to take offence.

As if Lady Whatsername has ever been on the Clapham Omnibus.