Stamets [Mirror]They're human, not a child-eating clown
TheOneWithTheHairI was on Reddit and used he/she. I was scolded by about 15 posters as to why I should be using they.
smh
I see where they’re coming from. They is way safer in general. Covers people who are male, female, non binary or others. That being said reddit does have a problem with being unable to educate people. They immediately have to just insult and yell at you for it.
You would have thought things would change after reddit abused a family after the Boston bombing but nope. Same toxicity at an all time high.
BondrewdWhy would I want to respect morons who dont give me the benefit of the doubt though?
In places where assumptions cause kneejerk downvotes and comments like you explained, I wont take the time to be respectful towards people.
You just insulted entire groups of people (that exist outside of reddit) by calling them morons and then said you won’t take the time to be respectful towards people.
You are actively part of the problem and you do not have the right to complain.
You don’t get to disrespect people pre-emptively and then whine that no one respects you or gives you the benefit of the doubt. You aren’t giving it to them so why would anyone bother giving it to you?
Id recommend checking that behavior because it is 100% the cause of why people don’t “give you the benefit of the doubt.”.
If they dont give me the benefit of the doubt, I will gladly insult them for talking shit.
I dont really care about rights, as that was never really given to me in my life. I speak up about things I feel that need to be spoken up on.
I didnt say I dont give them respect. I said I dont go out of my way to not cause tears. If for some reason they suspect me of malicious misgendering, and start bitching about it, they can just piss off. I dont misgender, except for comical purposes.
I’m sorry but your comment is nonsense.
You say that “If they don’t give you the benefit of the doubt, then you will insult them”. You then claim “I didn’t say I don’t give them respect.” But that’s immediately proven wrong by the last bit of the comment.
You say that you need them to give you the benefit of the doubt. When do you give it to them? In what situation will you give them the benefit of the doubt that there was a misunderstanding? Why do they have to be the one to cater to you? Why can’t you slow down and go “Hey, I didn’t mean this offensively, I meant it this way. I’m sorry. I assume you’re not being hateful, just frustrated by a misunderstanding. I apologize for that misunderstanding.” Why can’t you be the person to reach out?
You expect everyone to give you everything first. This is direct proof that you don’t give them respect. You don’t respect any group at all unless they give YOU the benefit of the doubt first. YOU come first. It’s all about YOU. Every part of your comment is “me me me me me me” and the only part that’s about someone else is when it’s insulting. Then you openly prove you’re a liar by saying “I don’t misgender, except for comical purposes.” Based off of your comedy. Not theirs. Not considering anyone else in this situation, only considering yourself. What about their sense of humor? What if they were graphically beaten for being trans and are constantly misgendered by people who actively wish them to die? You gonna still make the misgendering joke? Because I can guarantee it’s comical for you but not the people you’re making fun of.
Here’s something else. The world does not revolve around you. Your comical preferences and whims are not universal. How you think and how you feel are not shared by everyone else so expecting that they are, and then throwing a little bitchy hissyfit because someone dared to be offended by your disgusting and gross actions, is only proof that you’re the problem.
You are a bad person and you deserve every ounce of hate ever thrown your way until you decide to consider other people before opening your mouth.
So sit down, educate yourself, or fuck off. Because no one will ever want to engage with you if you’re going to act like yourself. Fix your personality and fix your considerations of other people. Quit bitching and moaning that someone thinks you’re being hateful when you’re actively being hateful.
Those statements are not even in the same context. I have a basic level of respect I give and any more than that is expedient. If they dont respect that, then those are the fuckups that make it sure that I will never ever go out of my way just to please people.
If you identify with the group that fucks with people like that, I cant help you. I guess you can take it as a direct insult, but then I actually dont care because you live and breath by being malicious.
I have a basic level of respect I give and any more than that is expedient.
Is directly contradicted with
I dont misgender, except for comical purposes.
You are not giving a basic level of respect if you are using their existence as the butt of the joke. You don’t get to say others are 'living and breathing by being malicious" when you are doing exactly that. It really is as simple as that.
You can say I belong to whatever group you want but your opinion doesn’t matter. I’ve seen what you makes cheer. The fact that I make you boo, if anything, is a compliment.
I dont do it in a serious context. Internet troll culture is totally okay in my opinion.
FerkYou aren’t giving it to them so why would anyone bother giving it to you?
Isn't that the point being made by he/she/they? (now I don't know what to call @Bondrewd )
I don't think Bondrewd was "preemptivelly" calling them "morons". The way I read it, Bondrewd was referring to those "who don't give me the same benefit of the doubt". Bondrewd did not specify if those who complained belonged to any particular "group of people".
You might want to read his other comment before you stand by that assessment.
If they dont give me the benefit of the doubt, I will gladly insult them for talking shit.
I dont really care about rights, as that was never really given to me in my life. I speak up about things I feel that need to be spoken up on.
I didnt say I dont give them respect. I said I dont go out of my way to not cause tears. If for some reason they suspect me of malicious misgendering, and start bitching about it, they can just piss off. I dont misgender, except for comical purposes.
“I didn’t say I don’t respect them. I said I don’t go out of my way to disrespect them. I just make jokes about misgendering people.”
Sounds a lot like going out of your way to disrespect people to me.
Why take the time at all then? If you’re going to be rude you clearly don’t care about educating the person.
So you really just do it for some personal validation?
I dont see any kind of merit in educating the person. I usually see that people are too set in their ways, they dont have enough plasticity for this.
Then just ignore them
ThirdWorldOrderI would say it takes effort to be polite. What takes no effort is being rude or dismissive.
Maybe you’re just naturally a positive person though which the majority of people aren’t (at least not on Reddit/lemmy)
I don’t understand that. Getting upset or angry requires actual effort. It’s exhausting and taxing. Raises your blood pressure, stresses you out, causes a bunch of other knots in muscles and shit. It’s just actively more effort and more damaging than just shrugging and moving on. I wouldn’t say I’m positive though. I assume people are polite. If they aren’t then I’m not going to let someone walk all over me. But I am actively depressed, consider killing myself pretty much daily, have no family, have no friends, don’t have anyone to I regularly talk to, and I rewatch Star Trek non-stop because it’s the only thing that makes me feel okay. I ain’t positive even remotely. I’m just exhausted after everything I’ve been through in the past few years and I don’t have the energy to get worked up.
It’s a lowest common denominator strategy. If you respond in kindness, there’s an outsized chance you’ll be attacked in kind. So lots of people choose to attack first rather than be a victim of being attacked. It’s a strategy that only works if enough people choose it.
That’s why I stuck to more niche communities on reddit, less chance that people engage like that. Or, even if they do, I can be genuinely kind back and they usually cool off.
Or, from another perspective, you don’t know if the person you’re engaging with means you or your community harm but they said things that people who do mean you harm have said in the past. So, you make it immediately clear that you and your community aren’t easy targets. It’s still a lowest common denominator strategy, but one that centers the safety of others.
I still don’t understand. Like at all.
If you respond in kindness, there’s an outsized chance you’ll be attacked in kind.
“If you’re nice, you have a higher chance of being attacked.” Have literally never experienced this. If I’m nice first, people are generally nice because people will match the mood of what they’re engaging with. If you come in hostile, you’re going to immediately make enemies. If you come in friendly, you’re gonna make friends. Moreover, I often don’t give a damn about the person I’m actively responding to if they’re being a dick. What I care about is setting an example for everyone else. They’re too far gone. They’re a lost cause. You can try but it’s unlikely that an internet comment is going to change their opinion because they’ve already entrenched themselves. But the others on the sidelines? They’re seeing one hateful dude who’s spitting at everyone and one dude who is just being nice. Generally they will side with the nice dude. Moreover, you can make it abundantly clear you’re not a target while still being nice and still being polite. This isn’t some black magic voodoo that’s been lost to time. Pretty simple and easy to do. Canadians and New Zealanders do it every day like they’re breathing.
So lots of people choose to attack first rather than be a victim of being attacked. It’s a strategy that only works if enough people choose it.
Doesn’t matter how many people choose it. Could be the majority. You’d still be a bad person.
There isn’t an excuse for being hostile and a dick at the start. None. Ever. If they start with something hostile, be polite back but firm and say that you don’t know if it was meant that way or not but it came off insulting. You will, however, assume that it wasn’t insulting. They then either back off and say it wasn’t and everythings chill or they confirm it was insulting. In which case you politely point out why they’re not welcome here, what they did wrong, and perhaps how to fix it. Then you move on with your life. If you’re actively throwing the same hate back at them then you’re better then them but not by much. You’re still adding to the problem. You’re still tossing fuel on the fire. Block buttons exist. Ban buttons exist. There’s no excuse for insulting other people. Don’t care if they insulted you first. Be the better person and walk away.
Yeah, I agree with you. But your strategy requires not allowing (or giving the appearance of not allowing) someone to get to you. If someone says something that pisses you off, you’re probably going to reply while pissed off. I’m not saying this is the optimal strategy, I’m saying it’s just what people do.
I’m neurodivergent, so I usually don’t get wrapped up in conversations like that, but even I fall for it sometimes.
Maybe it’s because sometimes I find myself accidentally in hexbear and getting banned
I was on Reddit … scolded by about 15 posters …
sounds like a success to me
Jumping down people's throat about it is stupid - unless malicious, then jump away and tear whomever a new one. They aren't technically wrong, though. "They" is an ideal word that's been correct in both the singular and plural sense for centuries. Given more recent social developments, it's an easy way to be inclusive and not "risk" being wrong.
In the past, English had "thou" for 2nd person singular and "you" was exclusive to the 2nd person plural.
I don't see why that can't happen with "they" too.
Though it's a bit sad that it would likely result in a more ambiguous language that could potentially lead to misunderstandings, unless we start to use things like "they all" for plural, in a similar way as how "you all" is sometimes used.
Dharma CuriousThey+all=th’all? Adding this to my lexicon. Y’all is sacred to me, being from the south. Th’all shall be canonized along with it.
Absolutely if anyone has a problem with that, th’all can go fuck themselves.
rockerface 🇺🇦Y’all is already gender neutral, though, and therefore superior to any other pronoun
It really is. I love that word so much. I grew up with it as completely normal, and when I got a little older got picked on for using it in our largish city we’d moved to. Now everyone uses it. But old Old Believers never stopped.
“He/his” used for be acceptable for people/things of unknown gender as well. Point out a random animal on a walk to your parents and there’s a high chance that they will use male pronouns.
In some obscure mmo I played as a kid, someone was referring to a famous mod with male pronouns, going how it is acceptable If you don’t know the gender and it’s more polite than the alternatives. Now this was long, long, long before agender, and other gendered terms were really a known thing. If you were to told someone you were gender fluid or something like that, they would look at you like you just grew a second head. I don’t quite remember what was said, or why it was being talked about, it was around 20 years ago now. Things have changed since then.
I still fall back on the male pronoun default from time to time, but I try not to as much. But it is a learned behavior that is hard to break entirely.
Man used to be synonymous with human. For instance, when people talk about humans in prehistory, they might use the phrase “early man.” In that context, the word “man” is gender neutral.
It still is neutral in that sense, but thst wasn’t the sense I was talking about.
Sure. But also, I was a 90s kid too(?) - computers were boy stuff, dont'y'know, and girls should go play with dolls instead. Pedantically, I don't think it was correct to use when unknown, it was just that the "chance of being wrong" was a lot smaller because we really did assume "anyone in position X has to be a man" a lot more the further back you go. Even if it's just the 90-00s.
If you’re quick, once you’ve accidentally defaulted to he, you can quick add the she, and then a they, for he/she/they
he/she is pretty awkward to use when “they” is RIGHT THERE
“they” has been used singular for longer than “you” had been singular… if you have some weird “rulerslap me mommy” grammar fetish, you can successfully stay erect while using singular they by knowing it was good enough for chaucer, okay
It/that
BeefDaddySupremeGrammatically correct, as all things should be
Nah, I identify as multiple people, so it’s they/them for me
That wasn’t asking
All I’m saying is according to English grammatical rules it’s a perfectly valid method of referring to a singular person when gender is unknown.
Now according to societal politeness rules on the other hand, it’s rude as fuck.
it’s rude af…
How rude!
samus12345Don’t say that word!
I would say that, given that it’s never ok, it is part of English grammartical rules. In German they actually use two different words for when a human eats or when an animal eats, it’s not unprecedented and there’s no need to lend any credibility to the usage of the word “it”.
There is a single precedent I can think of, which is that with some regularity I see infants/newborns referred to as “it”.
A mindset from the before (antibiotics) times. Babies used to die quite frequently. So much that in some cultures babies weren’t named until later in their life, not during pregnancy as it’s custom today. So they were kind of an out there thing, that wasn’t baptized and named yet, they were an it. No different than a dog or a turtle, they might die without a name, given an unmarked burial. And off to the next pregnancy. Still a tragedy, and people did mourn and suffered the loss. But not to the same degree of modern, western medicalized, pregnancies were almost every single baby born is expected to at least survive to infancy.
“Can you tell if that’s a man or a woman over there?” “It’s a man.”
My point was merely to show the difference between what is grammatically ok vs what is societally ok.
In time, I imagine English grammar will continue to change with the language and it will take on a definition that indicates something nonsentient.
It’s not rude, it’s dehumanizing. Slightly worse, right?
idk humans pretty much suck. mabe itps better to be an “it” 🤷
Unless it identifies as another species, then it’s affirming I guess
Lmao I was thinking that you mean they and was so fucking confused for a while thinking how rude I’ve been for YEARS.
according to English grammatical rules it’s a perfectly valid method of referring to a singular person
show me ONE fucking example prior to 2000 of people using “it” for persons without it being dehumanizing
singular “they” has fulfilled this function for at least 500 years. “it” has never been a pronoun for humans
there is no grammar rulebook. grammar is usage. you are claiming that it’s used like that. you’re fucking wrong.
You’re more than welcome to go back in time and inform my 10th grade teacher of this. Lemme know how that works out for you.
oh shit nvm didn’t realize your tenth grade English teacher said otherwise mb
In all fairness, they read out the part of the textbook that went over it. This was also the same paragraph that explained they can be used as well as the difference between you singular and the royal you.
That being said I’m sure we were both sarcastic in our prior responses but I’m attempting to show that I’m not pulling this out of my ass and I’m relying on a source of truth.
I just refer to refer to everyone as people or as that person and i also think dude is a gender neutral term i think? I dont know, feel free to debate that.
Dude IS a gender neutral term and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. We didn’t have an entire decade of surfer bros calling everyone and their mother ‘dude’ for people to think it’s gendered.
Aviandelight I couldn’t stop myself from using dude if I tried. It’s too much a part of me.
I know right?
Patapon EnjoyerIt is, but if someone is uncomfortable being called dude, don’t call them dude.
snooggumsWhile I agree in the abstract for usage as slang, it isn't completely gender neutral.
Would you refer to Romeo and Juliet as two dudes whose love ended in tragedy?
And I would think you’re talking about two men. The urban dictionary and regular one both define “dude” as a man.