The labels on the Chameleons came with the art. Because the names were a mystery to me I had to poke around the net for descriptions. It was all confusing as people would describe that definition in their own way, own language, and maybe there own take on it.
The bottom line is I might have misunderstood their point on some, but I got the overall impression they are trying to put a fine point on broad feelings.
Sex is more complicated than all our other dealings with other people because of the baggage attached.
Affection has it's baggage too but not as much or as severe.
Then there are silly people who feel getting married will solve everything, presto changeo.
And the lawyers laughed and laughed.

You mean I can't say Blacks any more as well... and Indians... and Crackers...  ad infinitum?
Maybe in addition to spell check we need a PCcheck.
 

Just put a tiny line on the letter 'r'.   They cannot ban the word "Queen".  It's not cricket

thanks, I have my moments

He really said it!

Mark yer calendars folks!

I think the "problem" is basically the conflict between being concerned about yourself versus being concerned about the well being of other people.

I think the goal should be "basic common courtesy" at a minimum.  At the same time, we hear that we should stick up for ourselves and not be door mats, so finding the balance is the key.

How much should my brain have to relearn to have "basic common courtesy" and how much is really too much and more than should be expected?  In my lifetime, I have experienced, as I'm sure many of you have as well, a steady drumbeat of PC changes as things that were common and acceptable are no longer acceptable.  I think it's a good thing to be always striving to improve ourselves and improve society, but I've noticed that incremental changes tend to be accepted much more readily than significant changes.  Flint's driving against the flow of traffic analogy is a great one to show an example where an individual isn't keeping up with generally accepted social norms.  On the other hand, I think that it's very possible for an individual to surround themselves with like-minded individuals and believe that they know what the new norms are, when they are actually just in a bubble.  When my bubble bumps up against your bubble, we find that we have wildly different ideas of what the norms should be.

Obviously, as a society, we should be talking about this stuff, but we all know what the current climate is and how much talking is really happening.

I'm too lazy to Google something so trivial, but the Anderson Cooper quote doesn't seem real to me. There's no way an educated person could not know the older meaning of the word gay. The more I think about it, that's just stupidly impossible. I am calling this, with no backup. This is fake, low-effort outrage bait. Convince me otherwise. Or don't, it really doesn't matter.

Clodfobble wrote:

But you've also got to cut people some slack for not knowing, or accidentally saying something that they're still un-learning. Outrage does not make people change; it makes them dig in harder.
 

This is a great perspective, where it applies, but since 2016, when Andy Richter tweeted, "It's a great time to be alive if you're dumb and mean," we've been living in a world where intentional malice is considered a virtuous form of points-scoring in a cULtUrE wAr against baby-eating lizard people.

 

Stay sharp. Examine the details. I didn't even read the whole quote, I skimmed through it enough to confirm the necessary premise that it's based upon-- that an articulate English speaker, a public speaker by profession, doesn't know the meaning of common English words from the 20th century. There's just no way that could be true. Not even if it was a "bad guy" from "the other team" would I believe that.

It's like the other day when Trump spoke at CPAC, and all the news articles said he is so confused and dementia-riddled that he called his wife "Mercedes" instead of Melania. I was curious, I watched the video. He was talking about his wife, then he addresses a comment to someone off camera. The organizer of CPAC has a wife named MERCEDES. There's no question that's who he was referring to, it's patently obvious. All the news articles said he forgot his wife's name.

By the way, there are hundreds of legitimate examples that he is confused and dementia-riddled, but this isn't one of them, and it doesn't contribute anything to write that article.

Flint wrote:

  we've been living in a world where intentional malice is considered a virtuous form of points-scoring in a cULtUrE wAr against baby-eating lizard people. 

Adults who are still children will always exist.  They worship the bully on a playground.  He is not intelligent or constructive.  And yet admired by many who make decisions only from what they feel.

An adult sees a bully for what he really is.  But that means thinking logically; not emotionally.  Many adults (who are still children) do not realize they are only thinking emotionally.  Inspired by what they feel; not by first learning facts.

Propaganda and advertising target the emotional.  A soundbite is all that a bully or his fan needs to know (feel) everything.

Sex is relevant only to a person having it.  How one has sex is always irrelevant to all others - who are responsible.  But that means thinking logically.  Some adults are still children.  Then use hate to condemn (demean) how another has sex.
 

Last edited by tw (3/14/2024 9:16 am)

There was a piece in the Washington Post today called the Hero. It's a long read about a shooting in a primarily queer bar, and gave the background stories on most of the people there, especially the Hero Rich Fierro who's wife owned the bar.
Reading was interesting but every once in awhile he'd start using them and they about a single person and I'd have to back up and figure out what was going on. It's really annoying in print, I think those pronouns were created expressly to avoid confusion in print. Talking to someone is a whole different ballgame than reading. You can mispronounce every other word and still be understood.
It looks like Flint was right about using queer, in this whole long article I only saw it used once by itself, whereas many times in conjunction like queer people, queer bar, queer family. In WAPO I would expect it to be politically correct... at least for today, tomorrow who  knows. LoL

If I tried the new way, I would probably f it up and get everybody pissed off and not know why. 
Sticking with the old one.

OK, give me the rules so that I can do it "right."

Here's a neat trick:

Someone left their cell phone on the table in a diner. You don't know who they are.

You wonder, "Should I try to call them? ..Wait.. how could I call them, their phone is here. Oh, I know! I'll call someone in their contacts, and they can tell me how to find them."

This is regular English, it doesn't require any special rules.

When someone goes by "they / them" pronouns, it's spoken in English exactly as if their gender is unknown or indeterminate.

...

eta:
a user on a message board, whose identity you don't know, is automaticlaly referred to as "they/them"
a suspect in a criminal investigation, whose identity hasn't been release to the public, is automaticlaly referred to as "they/them"
an unkown benefactor who has made an anonymous donation to charity, is automaticlaly referred to as "they/them"
a random person who accidentally let go of a balloon you see floating high above the city, is automaticlaly referred to as "they/them"
 

Last edited by Flint (3/19/2024 6:45 pm)