Especially with so many competing standards. Personally, I use the singular ‘they.’ I mean, yes, it’s not technically correct, but people understand you.
And, after all, ‘em eir ey’ aren’t technically correct either. On account of not being words.
I have mellowed in the last year or so. I no longer downvote every comment that uses that kind of language. They no longer have the same close ties with an abhorrent (local) political agenda so I can now consider them more or less acceptable.
EDIT: Most unexpected significant and rapid downvoting of one of my comments ever. I retract it, including the downvote policy change—I have returned to considering the subject as distasteful politics.
Upvoted wedrifid because the original downvoting was weird and silly. I think the downvoting policy he returned to is similarly silly, but at least had a coherent motivation.
Ok, my reception-of-comment predictions are way off now. I expected the parent comment to end up more downvoted after the preceding edit, not less (it expressed intention to follow a voting strategy that some may not like for reasons that some would not follow). Instead it went from −5 to +4. Unfortunately the voting strategy mentioned (and the underlying preferences) actually relies on my model of people’s motivations when using “ey”s. Since my model of behavior patterns in the context are unreliable my strategy in responding is not clear. I’ll have to go by whim and intuition on a case by case basis!
Disclaimer: I’m strongly in favor of gender neutral language. I do personally use Singular They because it’s the least obtrusive and most correct, but consider ey/eir/em to be a decent alternative (they feel like the most natural schelling point to me if you were going to pick a new word, and tend to be read as typos or completely glossed over during the interim period where they’ll still gaining traction, whereas xir/zer/whatever just look weird)
In general I consider gender neutral language better than no gender neutral language even if obtrusive and have little sympathy for people who consider it obtrusive. Yes, it’s a pet political peeve on mine that makes me okay with this, but it’s pet political peeves of the pro-english-status-quo-folks that make it a remotely big deal in the first place.
Less Wrong is the one place where I’d consider altering this perspective, because we make a genuine effort not be political at all, and whether I like it or not, it IS a recurring consequence of gender neutral language that someone makes a big deal out of it. (Case in point, this thread)
I place most of the blame of this on the people complaining about it, but it is what it is. (I am personally annoyed whenever someone uses “He” to describe someone who turns out to be female or gender-nonconforming. I don’t have a consistent policy on how to respond to that but I’d accept blame for arguments that happen because I made a big deal out of it).
But your downvoting seemed incredibly weird, especially without anyone clarifying why they did it in the first place. Pro-gender-neutral-folks shouldn’t have downvoted you for having changed your policy. Pro-status-quo folks who are upset at you for “having mellowed” would a) strike me as INCREDIBLY ridiculous, b) really should have explained their motivations if they wanted to punish your defection in a meaningful way. So the downvoting was either dumb or deliberate trolling. Presumably the subsequent upvoting was by other people sympathetic to the unfairness of the situation.
(I successfully resisted explaining this in detail yesterday, trying to avoid contributing to the political-tangeant-splosion. At this point the political-tangeant-sposion’s already happened and I figure I might as well explain myself).
Disclaimer: I’m strongly in favor of gender neutral language. I do personally use Singular They because it’s the least obtrusive and most correct, but consider ey/eir/em to be a decent alternative (they feel like the most natural schelling point to me if you were going to pick a new word, and tend to be read as typos or completely glossed over during the interim period where they’ll still gaining traction, whereas xir/zer/whatever just look weird)
I am persuaded. “Ey/eir/em” are Cool not-quite-words.
At this point the political-tangeant-sposion’s already happened and I figure I might as well explain myself
Analytical tangents are also cool. Your parent was not especially political—at in particular it was only directly in favor of the new words rather than abusing those words to push a different agenda. When divorced of any other connotations a simple word preference is not especially dramatic.
Pro-gender-neutral-folks shouldn’t have downvoted you for having changed your policy.
My best guess was that it was people trying to punish me for acknowledging that I formerly had that policy (and the usual two or three downvotes that I expect most of my comments to get from people I have pissed off recently—perhaps a couple from Clippy). But, as I noted, my model of human behavior in the context was completely broken so I had little confidence in that prediction.
Pro-status-quo folks who are upset at you for “having mellowed” would a) strike me as INCREDIBLY ridiculous, b) really should have explained their motivations if they wanted to punish your defection in a meaningful way.
I would have loved hearing that if that was the case.
EDIT: As wedrifid implies, words are strings of characters with socially established meanings. Just because he doesn’t belong to the social group that uses those words to mean those things doesn’t mean they stop being words. It’d be like saying {klama} isn’t a word merely because only around a thousand people or so have ever used it to mean “go/come.”
And, after all, ‘em eir ey’ aren’t technically correct either. On account of not being words.
I have mellowed in the last year or so. I no longer downvote every comment that uses that kind of language. They no longer have the same close ties with an abhorrent (local) political agenda so I can now consider them more or less acceptable.
EDIT: Most unexpected significant and rapid downvoting of one of my comments ever. I retract it, including the downvote policy change—I have returned to considering the subject as distasteful politics.
Upvoted wedrifid because the original downvoting was weird and silly. I think the downvoting policy he returned to is similarly silly, but at least had a coherent motivation.
I must admit it is certainly the most whimsical of my downvoting policies.
Ok, my reception-of-comment predictions are way off now. I expected the parent comment to end up more downvoted after the preceding edit, not less (it expressed intention to follow a voting strategy that some may not like for reasons that some would not follow). Instead it went from −5 to +4. Unfortunately the voting strategy mentioned (and the underlying preferences) actually relies on my model of people’s motivations when using “ey”s. Since my model of behavior patterns in the context are unreliable my strategy in responding is not clear. I’ll have to go by whim and intuition on a case by case basis!
Disclaimer: I’m strongly in favor of gender neutral language. I do personally use Singular They because it’s the least obtrusive and most correct, but consider ey/eir/em to be a decent alternative (they feel like the most natural schelling point to me if you were going to pick a new word, and tend to be read as typos or completely glossed over during the interim period where they’ll still gaining traction, whereas xir/zer/whatever just look weird)
In general I consider gender neutral language better than no gender neutral language even if obtrusive and have little sympathy for people who consider it obtrusive. Yes, it’s a pet political peeve on mine that makes me okay with this, but it’s pet political peeves of the pro-english-status-quo-folks that make it a remotely big deal in the first place.
Less Wrong is the one place where I’d consider altering this perspective, because we make a genuine effort not be political at all, and whether I like it or not, it IS a recurring consequence of gender neutral language that someone makes a big deal out of it. (Case in point, this thread)
I place most of the blame of this on the people complaining about it, but it is what it is. (I am personally annoyed whenever someone uses “He” to describe someone who turns out to be female or gender-nonconforming. I don’t have a consistent policy on how to respond to that but I’d accept blame for arguments that happen because I made a big deal out of it).
But your downvoting seemed incredibly weird, especially without anyone clarifying why they did it in the first place. Pro-gender-neutral-folks shouldn’t have downvoted you for having changed your policy. Pro-status-quo folks who are upset at you for “having mellowed” would a) strike me as INCREDIBLY ridiculous, b) really should have explained their motivations if they wanted to punish your defection in a meaningful way. So the downvoting was either dumb or deliberate trolling. Presumably the subsequent upvoting was by other people sympathetic to the unfairness of the situation.
(I successfully resisted explaining this in detail yesterday, trying to avoid contributing to the political-tangeant-splosion. At this point the political-tangeant-sposion’s already happened and I figure I might as well explain myself).
I am persuaded. “Ey/eir/em” are Cool not-quite-words.
Analytical tangents are also cool. Your parent was not especially political—at in particular it was only directly in favor of the new words rather than abusing those words to push a different agenda. When divorced of any other connotations a simple word preference is not especially dramatic.
My best guess was that it was people trying to punish me for acknowledging that I formerly had that policy (and the usual two or three downvotes that I expect most of my comments to get from people I have pissed off recently—perhaps a couple from Clippy). But, as I noted, my model of human behavior in the context was completely broken so I had little confidence in that prediction.
I would have loved hearing that if that was the case.
Neologisms are still words.
EDIT: As wedrifid implies, words are strings of characters with socially established meanings. Just because he doesn’t belong to the social group that uses those words to mean those things doesn’t mean they stop being words. It’d be like saying {klama} isn’t a word merely because only around a thousand people or so have ever used it to mean “go/come.”
Sure, ok. “Not words in this particular established language”. Arglebargle witzot phlerg.
You mis-spelled “flerg”.
Must have missed my edit where I explicitly mentioned social groups. Also, see Wittgenstein’s comments on private language.
No. Nor is that conclusion suggested by my reply.
What was your reply supposed to suggest?