There's nothing wrong with the generic usage of he/him/his. People who genuinely oppose it are illiterate.

FairlyWhelmed · 2020-06-24T19:49:57+00:00

[deleted]

softbeats · 2020-06-24T20:00:59+00:00

I even like to refer to my dakimakura as she/her.

FairlyWhelmed · 2020-06-24T21:12:32+00:00

Nah, you're just defending The Oppressive Patriarchy! /s

Redfield_91 · 2020-06-24T23:00:29+00:00

No, they are political!

First of all, language is not discriminating. No language is.

For feminists the problem is the asymmetry regarding gender references which can be found in almost all languages by the way.

But women want to be "linguistically equal" too, that's why they force whole countries to change their language.

In the end, their best arguments are meaningless. It is true that studies exist that show people think of a male person first when seeing the pronoun "he" in a generic sense ...

BUT: Genderless languages like Turkish, Chinese, Iranian, Swahili don't necessarily prevent women from discrimination, right?

In other words, the actual linguistic science know that language and the extralingual world are connected and can have an influence, but only to a certain degree.

If the feminist argument would be true, then women in Turky or China or Africa (genderless languages) would be more empowered as women in Europe or Northamerica.

Is this true? Of course not!

DangZagnut · 2020-06-24T20:29:02+00:00

It's like having to write a paper on Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein for class all over again.

If somehow you never read it, you would love it. Same style of analytical thought.

Part I

Between (1) and (2) you go from symbolic meaning to sentences without defining "sentences.

Having not defined "sentences" in (2) it would make more sense to state that it has different meaning based on the contextual environment to inform the meaning.

In (5), we only understand the symbolic context if we are informed of that context, a priori, so we can understand the context and its meaning.

Part II

In (3), we know the context of "John", and that grammatically "he" is a representation of "John". Using "he" afterwards helps clarify in a context between two things related to sex, if "John and Jane, go to the store. He likes beer and she likes to bitch and moan," it allows some syntactic sugar in language for brevity, differentiated by informing which representation is being used, as John is a male and Jane is a female, similar to in legal contracts how there's language to say "ACME Inc., hereforeafter known as 'Vendor'.....". If there were more than one corporation, then they may say "Vendor 1" and "Vendor 2".

You can use different delegates for John and Jane, and not use sex, as long as it carries enough information so using the delegate does not confuse a reader. Both John and Jane can't be "they" as individuals.

The "problem", if there was one, comes in at (4) where it is assumed you are ascribing male properties to "someone", which is fine if the context assumed sex specificity. Such as, "at the all boys school, someone shit all over the locker room, and he is in for a world of shit". Is it guaranteed to be male? No, but in the context one can assume it is male. But that's only because the context is assumed to be the only contextual environment, whereas there is no reason to guarantee that is the case. There's no rule that says a woman couldn't have snuck into the school and shit all over the locker room. In fact, in the writing of murder mysteries, this kind of language is intentionally done to throw the reader as to who the murderer is, by taking advantage of the tunnel vision of the reader.

You see this in the classic, "It is prophesied that no man can defeat me!" who is then defeated by a woman who "ain't no man". It's a technique, when used correctly, to subvert the users expectations, but changing the world to show a chink in the viewers perceptions.

In (5) we are informed via our particular culture and experience, but is by no means guaranteed to be representative of reality, just our lens through it.

It's why you see the SJW's whining about "male and female" sex. Sure, there's two types of humans, males and females, then they jump up and whine about intersex or hermaphroditic people, which is technically true, but usually people aren't trying to be inclusive of every mutant out there.

Part III

(1)Their issue is completely political and ideological, not about language or anything else. Throughout western civilization, using "he" is standard to mean all people, but SJW's don't possess functioning brain stems to understand that. Their entire world lens is Marxist oppression/oppressor dynamics and that everything is political. So they assume if you use the word "he", then you're being patriarchal. It doesn't matter that "he" is used because men did everything in society, minus birthing children. And since men wrote the documents, they used "he", even when it also has meanings as "everyone".

Like "That's one small step for man, a giant leap for mankind" is not meant to mean only men, it also includes women, and children, and black people, and yellow people, etc.

But SJWs have some serious brain issues, and I don't mean that facetiously, they truly do not process information like "normal" (another word they hate) people.

When they see a symbol, they see oppression, that you only mean "those of male persuasion".

This thinking isn't unique to SJWs, religious people do it as well, those with this defect just are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

SJWs problem is, they're marxists, which means everything must be an oppression system. The idea that it doesn't always happen that way, like a feminist with a rape fetish, simply does not compute. It cannot cross the blood brain barrier.

(2)They're incapable of it. They just see the red cape and charge like a bull. Which is why they are extremely easy to exploit by the various cults.

(3)They're literate, they just, like someone who is intersex, not designed as normal people do. Like autistic people who cannot handle loud noises, SJWs cannot differentiate things having more than one meaning, or that things can have more than one cause.

Look at the debunked wage gap. The claim is women make less than men. But if you ask them a simple question like, "so why don't companies only hire women if they're so cheap?" they are incapable of answering the question, because their only assumption is patriarchy hates women so much, that capitalist corporations will willingly lose as much money as possible, just to hate women, since as we know corporations intentionally attempt to lose as much money as possible.

Their brains simply cannot process multiple causes of things, or that they can ever be wrong. Their brain has no way to back track up a node tree and follow a different path. Their thinking is a one way street which is why they make excellent "useful idiots" for various cults.

debanked · 2020-06-24T22:24:23+00:00

Man will never learn

Part I

Part II

Part III

Comments