i shall never surrender.

[NSXCIGAR]

12 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

There’s extensive polling about the use of the period? Are you serious?

"This nonsense" I took to mean the general trend of things like this. I'm assuming you haven't asked Milennials and Gen Z you've met specifically about the use of periods. But I would bet many of them would subscribe to the notion of "microaggressions" of which this would be an example 

[NSXCIGAR]

16 hours ago, generalnegroni said:

Imagine being scared of a generation…

When people who believe there are only either victims or victimizers eventually become leaders I would say there's reason for concern. This "period" issue is, at its core, a victimizer-victim (or oppressor/oppressed) issue. 

[MrBirdman]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

"This nonsense" I took to mean the general trend of things like this. I'm assuming you haven't asked Milennials and Gen Z you've met specifically about the use of periods. But I would bet many of them would subscribe to the notion of "microaggressions" of which this would be an example 

Yeah I’m not one for taking threads that far afield, as it’s not good etiquette. People have been complaining about younger generations for, well, ever  Boomer parents did it. The ancient Romans did it. Finding weirdos with idiosyncratic beliefs about punctuation is more about confirming older generations’ beliefs about how dumb Millenials are than it is an actual source of tension. In other words, it’s clickbait - and apparently a successful specimen at that.  

And I did query some peers. They found the article ridiculous. 

[NSXCIGAR]

7 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

And I did query some peers. They found the article ridiculous. 

Something tells me the youngsters you associate with probably reside closer to reality. I'm not sure that's the best pool to sample from. 

Again, I definitely agree that I think you'll get most young people to admit this period issue is ridiculous but if you pressed them further I think that you'd find it really to be an issue of degree and not an issue of kind.

The issue is fundamentally controlling how others speak and/or write and there are plenty of young people that would agree in some instances there should be restrictions on speech to prevent "offending" (actually "victimization"), and therefore is really only a difference in degree rather than in kind. A period isn't a big deal but don't you dare misgender someone. That kind of thing. 

[generalnegroni]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The issue is fundamentally controlling how others speak and/or write and there are plenty of young people that would agree in some instances there should be restrictions on speech to prevent "offending" (actually "victimization"), and therefore is really only a difference in degree rather than in kind. A period isn't a big deal but don't you dare misgender someone. That kind of thing. 

Just to be clear, people you don’t know, in conversations you’re not in, are using punctuation in a more expressive way than you were taught at school in 1800 as language adapts to revolutionary technology, without asking you first. This means everyone born after 1980 is a snowflake and a cry baby who is trying to control you because they think slavery was bad and trans people exist. 

Am I following ok

[generalnegroni]

On 3/26/2023 at 2:17 AM, NSXCIGAR said:

I see you’re happy using emojis even when they also come from using punctuation differently from its original meaning  = : )

[Hammer Smokin']

< 1980 = Boomer

> 1980 = Snowflake

I got it 

But what happens if your like myself and so many others who were born in, gasp, 1980. 

Are we boomerflakes? 

[NSXCIGAR]

19 hours ago, generalnegroni said:

This means everyone born after 1980 is a snowflake and a cry baby who is trying to control you because they think slavery was bad and trans people exist. 

Am I following ok

People born before 1980 don't think slavery was bad? I guess I should let these people out of my dungeon then...

Also seems like only pre-1980 can define a man or woman too. What should we do about that? 

Am I following ok

18 hours ago, generalnegroni said:

I see you’re happy using emojis even when they also come from using punctuation differently from its original meaning  = : )

Anyone can use punctuation any way they like. Just don't claim to be offended by its general use. 

You do understand that claiming to be offended is nothing more than a manipulation tactic to attempt to control behavior, right? Funny, I've yet to be offended and I have in fact been around since before 1980. Insulted many times. Offended never. I must just be special--kind of like a snowflake. 

[Chibearsv]

8 hours ago, Hammer Smokin&#x27; said:

< 1980 = Boomer

> 1980 = Snowflake

I got it 

But what happens if your like myself and so many others who were born in, gasp, 1980. 

Are we boomerflakes? 

Absolutely!  What else would you be called? 😁

[NSXCIGAR]

26 minutes ago, Chibearsv said:

Absolutely!  What else would you be called? 😁

Gen X?

[Ken Gargett]

On 3/26/2023 at 2:24 PM, BoliDan said:

Yes, this is what Ken is passionate about. Yet, he can't be bothered to capitalize his 'i' on the post and the subject line. Not putting periods is a greater offense, but still a bit of kettle pot dynamic here.

which was addressed above and numerous times previously. 

[generalnegroni]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

People born before 1980 don't think slavery was bad? I guess I should let these people out of my dungeon then...

Also seems like only pre-1980 can define a man or woman too. What should we do about that? 

Am I following ok

Anyone can use punctuation any way they like. Just don't claim to be offended by its general use. 

You do understand that claiming to be offended is nothing more than a manipulation tactic to attempt to control behavior, right? Funny, I've yet to be offended and I have in fact been around since before 1980. Insulted many times. Offended never. I must just be special--kind of like a snowflake. 

If I wanted to talk politics I’d be on Twitter. 

Punctuation has never upset anyone outside of this thread. People are still capable of communicating with nuance and reflection, and no one expects everyone to communicate like them. No one is trying to prize the full stops from your cold, dead keyboards.

For further reading, please refer to the Blackadder Goes Forth Charlie Chaplin Telegram sketch.

[El Presidente]

1 hour ago, generalnegroni said:

If I wanted to talk politics I’d be on Twitter. 

 

...you still may be.   

Everyone pull your head in. Play the ball and not the man.

[BoliDan]

12 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

which was addressed above and numerous times previously. 

That is true KG, but if you expect me to not jump at an opportunity to be a wise ass, I would like to lower your expectations. 🥸

[Bijan]

On 3/25/2023 at 9:17 PM, NSXCIGAR said:

ou're going to get lots of Millennial/Z agreeing that "microaggressions" exist, certain speech can be violence and gender is a social construct,

Lynch that "n-word", sounds pretty violent.

Gender (as opposed to sex) as a social construct is universally accepted in social sciences (not just as of today, but for well over a century now).

Micro-aggressions I'll agree to some extent. Some of what is discussed in that context is relatively harmless, but you can clearly offend and denigrate without resorting to racial slurs and 4-letter words.

[Hammer Smokin']

18 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Gen X?

We don't exist.

As the millzedders says you are either with them or you're a boomer.

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, Bijan said:

Lynch that "n-word", sounds pretty violent.

Gender (as opposed to sex) as a social construct is universally accepted in social sciences (not just as of today, but for well over a century now).

Micro-aggressions I'll agree to some extent. Some of what is discussed in that context is relatively harmless, but you can clearly offend and denigrate without resorting to racial slurs and 4-letter words.

So what should be done to people who say those things? If it's violent then self-defense is ostensibly justified. 

If gender is a social construct and fluid its a useless term. Not sure where you're seeing this go back a hundred years. Gender and sex were synonymous in almost all dictionaries and writings until 15 years ago. Beginning in 1955 with John Money left-leaning social science departments decided to pick off that word and commandeer it for their own purposes in the 60s and 70s. I'm sure these academics would like it to be a social construct but wanting it doesn't make it so. 

If there's a micro-aggression, what should be done to those who micro-aggress? Should racial slurs be "banned"? Are some slurs worse than others? Is "Nazi" a slur? Pretty deep rabbt hole to go down there. 

14 hours ago, generalnegroni said:

Punctuation has never upset anyone outside of this thread.

The NY Post article exists outside of this thread. 

32 minutes ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

We don't exist.

As the millzedders says you are either with them or you're a boomer.

One of many things they like to pretend doesn't exist. Brings to mind one of the most aptly named Gen X films--Reality Bites. 

[Bijan]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

So what should be done to people who say those things? If it's violent then self-defense is ostensibly justified. 

 

Free speech is predicated on the idea that the state can't (and shouldn't) decide what is good or bad speech or regulate it without dystopian outcomes. Not that disgusting speech does not exist.

What it does mean is yes, that decent people shouldn't let racist militias assemble and plan hate crimes. Private citizens and private organizations (within certain limits) can enforce that as they wish.

6 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

If gender is a social construct and fluid its a useless term. Not sure where you're seeing this go back a hundred years. Gender and sex were synonymous in almost all dictionaries and writings until 15 years ago.

I said the first 6 words, everything else I did not imply.

In one society heterosexual men hold hands in public, in another older males had sexual relations with underage males as a form of education and socialization. Neither of these are acceptable in ours. Though they're obviously not shunned to the same degree.

9 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

If there's a micro-aggression, what should be done to those who micro-aggress? Should racial slurs be "banned"? Are some slurs worse than others? Is "Nazi" a slur? Pretty deep rabbt hole to go down there. 

This one is universally acknowledged (even by most racists). Using the n-word is not considered a micro aggression.

[MrBirdman]

28 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Gender and sex were synonymous in almost all dictionaries and writings until 15 years ago.

That’s called “progress.” For decades, until the 70’s if not later, the DSM and medical texts described homosexuality as a mental illness. Was psychology corrupted by a cabal of gay activists? 

I’m actually skeptical of many of the more extreme positions being staked out by the trans-movement, in part because some border on being anti-woman and frequently ignore the concerns of women. But that doesn’t mean trans people aren’t real. 

[Ken Gargett]

16 hours ago, generalnegroni said:

Punctuation has never upset anyone outside of this thread.

 

 

no disrespect but you could not be more wrong. a great many people take punctuation extremely seriously - 

 

 

Obviously, there is more to this divide than punctuation but anyone suggesting it does not matter is kidding themselves.

 

Great hyphen debate splits Czechoslovak MPs – archive, 1990

30 March 1990: Compromise over what to call Czechoslovakia after the fall of the communist government

 

Mon 30 Mar 2020 21.00 AEDT

 

When the Czecho-Slovak Republic was established in 1918 it was spelled with the hyphen, but in 1921 the government renamed the country Czechoslovakia. After the collapse of Communist rule at the end of 1989, the Slovaks demanded that the hyphen be reinstated. On 1 January 1993, the country separated into two new states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The Czechoslovak parliament, unable to agree on a new official name for the country, compromised yesterday by choosing two.

The president, Vaclav Havel, had warned deputies that the country would become a laughing stock unless it quickly resolved the Great Hyphen Debate.

Deputies rejected various proposals for a name to replace the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in the post-communist era.

Slovak insistence on their national identity being enshrined in a hyphenated form of Czecho-Slovakia led to 12 hours of discussion and backroom discussion before the final formula was agreed.

Now Czechoslovakia will be known as the Czechoslovak Federative Republic in Bohemia and Moravia, while in Slovakia it will be the Czecho-Slovak Federative Republic. The all-important hyphen distinguishes the Czech and Slovak-language versions of the name.

 

 

The debate was first reported in the Guardian 65 years earlier:

Czechs and Slovaks: a matter of a hyphen

From a correspondent
24 January 1925

Vienna, January 18
The club of the senators and deputies of the Slovak People’s party in Czecho-Slovakia has sent an open letter to the Austrian Chancellor, Herr Ramek, asking him to withdraw a recent Governmental order according to which the hyphen must no longer be used between the words “Czech” and “Slovak” in the name of the Czecho-Slovak State. The Austrian Government introduced this new order under pressure from the Czecho-Slovak Legation in Vienna.

The memorandum argues that, without prejudice to international customs, the Slovak deputies are entitled to ask this correction from the Austrian Chancellor, as the Peace Treaty of St Germain, in its French, English, and Italian text, speaks only of the “Czecho-Slovak” State or of “Czecho-Slovakia,” and that the Peace Treaty clearly mentions that the Czecho-Slovak State has been constituted by “the peoples of Bohemia” on the one hand and “the peoples of Slovakia” on the other.

Moreover, says the memorandum, the deputies wish to remind the Czechs of the decisions of the Constituent Assembly on October 30, 1918, in Tureiansky St Martin. Here, it declared it was agreed in a secret clause that the existing constitutional relation between Czechs and Slovaks should remain valid for ten years; after the lapse of this period the Slovaks should regain their right of self-determination, and a plebiscite will have to decide if they are to remain in the old relation with the Czechs or if they desire to establish an independent Slovak State.

In face of these facts, the hyphen between the two words is no mere question of orthography, says the memorandum. Accordingly the Slovak deputies beg the Austrian Government not to assist Prague in its endeavour to deprive the Slovaks of all their rights guaranteed by treaties concluded with the Czechs and by the international Peace Treaty.

The memorandum is signed by Father Hlinka as chairman of the Slovak People’s party.

 

 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

That’s called “progress.”

Mao would describe the Great Leap Forward the same way.

As far as homosexuality the APA's stance and subsequently the DSM were not changed in response to any greater scientific understanding of homosexuality (despite many worthy attempts in the 1950s-1970s). It was changed because of politcal and social pressure, plain and simple. The contention surrounding the 1973 changes is quite well-documented. So in fact it wasn't scientific progress at all that resulted in a change to a scientific text.

Whether or not it is ultimately correct is immaterial. My personal opinion may or may not align but the change you reference was not made by following the science, as is the case for many other programs (and pogroms) that are called "progress"--most of which originate by academics in their ivory towers. 

3 hours ago, Bijan said:

Free speech is predicated on the idea that the state can't (and shouldn't) decide what is good or bad speech or regulate it without dystopian outcomes. Not that disgusting speech does not exist.

Not exactly. The idea is that neither the state or a private citizen can use physical force against speech. The state also cannot pressure a private party to take action against speech. 

And disgusting speech is always subjective, so whether it "exists" is debatable.

[Bijan]

20 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Not exactly. The idea is that neither the state or a private citizen can use physical force against speech. The state also cannot pressure a private party to take action against speech. 

The state can't use much of anything. But private citizens can likely use force on their own property. Private organizations operating public facilities are more complicated but definitely nowhere near the limits of the state.

23 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

So in fact it wasn't scientific progress at all that resulted in a change to a scientific text.

Likely meant moral progress.

The world didn't reach peak racism, until it was based on "science", which at best was pseudo science.

The Adam and Eve myth though biblical was an anti racist position. That had echoes often throughout history.

On the other hand the bible had an anti homosexual message (in the few passages it mentions stoning). Also anti woman for the most part (more often by omission).

22 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And disgusting speech is always subjective, so whether it "exists" is debatable.

To quote the movie Love and death: "Subjectivity is objective"

[NSXCIGAR]

6 minutes ago, Bijan said:

But private citizens can likely use force on their own property.

You can't shoot someone on your own property because you don't like what they said. That's never been a tenet of absolute private property rights. 

As far as private institutions/parties/companies banning speech or people from speaking non-violently, yes, as long as there is no state involvement or pressure. In the case of universities any school that accepts government funds is considered not fully private. If a 100% privately funded school or business wants to ban a person or curtail speech have at it. 

7 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Likely meant moral progress.

The world didn't reach peak racism, until it was based on "science", which at best was pseudo science.

Because people think non-science is science doesn't make it so. And it's not the job of science or scientists to be arbiters of morality. Surely the Church thought Copernicus immoral. Also I would argue racism was much closer to peak in the period before slavery was being outlawed. There's a difference between thinking certain people are inferior and thinking they're subhuman which was much more prevalent before 1861 than after.

[MrBirdman]

54 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Whether or not it is ultimately correct is immaterial. My personal opinion may or may not align but the change you reference was not made by following the science,

First, you’re wrong that science played no role in the change. Flat out wrong. Second, it’s obvious that progress on social views also played a role - how could it not? That’s the whole point - we can let our prejudices taint our views about science in the first place. Third, the fact that you would even equivocate on whether the change was correct is completely disgusting.

[NSXCIGAR]

6 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

First, you’re wrong that science played no role in the change. Flat out wrong. Second, it’s obvious that progress 

I'd like to see that evidence that changes in knowlege or data resulted in the classification change and not activist pressure.

I wil give you that the APA's definitions of all mental illness was lacking and the activists jumped on that--rightfully so. But the change was not due to new evidence, research or science. 

By the way, I don't personally believe in the mental illness theory. This is soley about the motivations of the APA.