About right..
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
My feelings aren't hurt, I just prefer accuracy.
For fairness, I'll concede that assuming plurality at the very least CAN BE more of a big deal than assuming gender. However, assuming anything is a significant deal if accuracy is your concern, as it is mine. So the question remains: What word do I use if I want accuracy? I'll stop using 'they', as I agree it'd be nice to have something completely separate from the tranny and feminist nuts, the moment you present a valid alternative. Until then, I will continue to use the singular 'they', which virtually everyone understands the meaning of.
Also, I do sometimes make use of 'he' as an assumption when it seems more appropriate for the situation. Even if you insist on both 'he' and 'they' being assumptions, when striving for accuracy I hardly care which I use and generally prefer 'they'. Particularly considering it's never a problem in most cases and no one assumes you mean more than one person, so it's not like I'm trading clarity for accuracy. At that point, the clarity and accuracy are there for 99% of the people reading,
It's trivial to make up a singular pronoun. So again, if you don't like 'they', present an alternative. While I personally think most changes in language have been "devolution" in recent history, language can evolve and having a pronoun that is singular but nondescript is absolutely that.
P.S. I'm probably younger than you ;)
And I didn't go to a public indoctrination center for school or ever consider the MSM worth watching, so all your junk assumptions about my reasoning for word choice or anything else about me are very likely void of any sort of correctness. They only exist to appease your ego over not being able to accept a differing opinion on the subject. There's a reason I was a conservative by 18, and more and more of a hardliner from then on, and the reason certainly is NOT because I have an interest in appeasing a movement that is more focused on hating men (i.e. me) than on anything to do with women. If this one single thing I do appeases them, good for them, I give zero fucks. The other shit that I do that makes their brains implode on a recurring basis more than makes up for it.
Regardless, one thing our would-be overlords certainly do love, aside from feminists, is the divisive "muh boomer" rhetoric. They love when we focus on each other instead of on them. So good luck getting your new ship afloat when you're too busy sinking your ally's ships for not catering to your view of how things should be.
“no one assumes you mean more than one person”
Wrong.
You have no basis for your percentages of pronoun misusers. Anyway, I’ll stick with Q, old books, and proper pluralization.
I must’ve confused you with someone else who claimed to go to an elite high school in scandicuckistan, MN in the 1970s. I guess you’re not that boomer. If you’re younger, it makes more sense that you’ve been immersed in feminized and inaccurate pronoun usage for your whole life. Just realize that when you use “they” to refer to one person, you are bending the knee to the feminists. You’re marking yourself as a conquered person.
Ignored all the points I made and answered none of my questions... nice!
And your argument is even better than what I thought. If I'm old, I'm some useless, brainwashed boomer. If I'm young, I'm some useless, brainwashed... something? Basically, if I disagree with you, I'm brainwashed. Very nice turtle shell you've built for yourself there. Makes it real easy to win arguments when you don't have to participate and can just deflect.
And don't pretend people don't understand the singular they. You can disagree with it all you want on principal, but it's deluded to claim no one understands it. Whether you like it or not, it has become an accepted singular pronoun that almost everybody understands. Even you knew what the guy was saying when you made your first comment.
So for the millionth time, if you hate it so much, propose an alternative singular pronoun for an unidentified person. What am I supposed to say when I want accuracy? Speech is meant to convey meaning as accurately as possible. If it doesn't currently and never has in this area, make it.
The fact of the matter, is that you're simply falling into an extreme reaction to an extreme situation. Feminist and tranny types try and commandeer the English language, and you react by throwing out anything they corrupt. This is useless and achieves nothing. Instead, don't let them or create a proper alternative, instead of stamping your feet and screaming from your little corner to a bunch of people who don't give a shit about your complaints unless you have solutions that fix the actual issue. That being an accurate way word to use in the context.
And that you don't care about accuracy is apparent. You'd rather make one assumption you don't mind, so you don't have to make a different supposed assumption that you dislike. Either way it's inaccurate and at that point I don't really care about what you think on the subject. Neither does anyone who uses the word for accuracy’s sake. If you actually want to convince anyone who uses the word in this way, you'll need to bring more to the table than tenuous accusations of people being feminist enablers and brainwashed. That might make you feel good about yourself, but it doesn't help or fix anything.
Also, here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
The article is cringe tranny shit after about the second paragraph, but it's complete with dates and an example of the use of the singular 'they' long before the feminist cringe you keep crying about. That isn't the only example. Its claims are rigid and easily refutable if you have actual evidence of your claim that it's a new aspect of language. I will admit I couldn't really find it in any old dictionaries, but the examples of the word being used this way go back to Shakespeare. I have a feeling he has a better grasp over the English language than both you and I combined.
(If you read nothing else I've written, read this) http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html
Earlier you wrote, “no one assumes you mean more than one person.” I replied that this is wrong. It’s wrong because when ‘they’ is the first mention of the noun, people will believe it refers to a group. On the other hand, if ‘they’ calls back to an aforementioned noun, then people can figure out the intended meaning from context.
You went from one extreme to another. You started with claiming that “no one” thinks that ‘they’ refers to a group, then you falsely accused me of claiming instead that no one ever understands that ‘they’ might be intended to be singular. You said, “it's deluded to claim no one understands it. ” I didn’t claim that. I claim that people can figure it out from context, when available.
“Even you knew what the guy was saying when you made your first comment.“ The meme started with the dweeb saying “My co-worker” singular, so the context was available to figure out the intended meaning of a subsequent pronoun. If the meme didn’t include the dweeb’s opening statement, and instead started with the chad asking, “Were they vaxxed?”, then the proper interpretation would’ve been that the chad was talking about a group of people.
When talking about old books, I wasn’t asking for examples of usage, I was asking for the old guidelines about usage. Anyone can make mistakes. I’ve accidentally misused the pronoun ‘they’ also. You might be able to find an example in my GAW comments. I’m trying to reduce those types of mistakes, because I don’t like the commies thinking they’ve conquered me. So you found some old examples of mistakes. Big whoop. Now find where the old experts gave earnest advice to others to misuse ‘they’.
Use ‘he’.
And another: https://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/singular-they-in-english-bibles.html
Here's one more old example. King James Bible. No big deal though, only 400 years old...
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html