kbal

https://lemmy.ml/instances

Much as I enjoy arguments with strangers on the Internet, you’ve reminded me of my resolution to avoid the most silly ones. If you think I’m a sinophobe your judgement is very poor.

Removed by mod

Yes, that’s a perfectly good explanation for why they need to block wikipedia, deviantart, archiveofourown, github, bandcamp, lemmy.ml, and mastodon.social: they’re all just fronts in the Capitalist Information War

Ah well, sorry about that; I felt I didn’t express myself well in that last one but I stand by the part where I don’t think we disagree on anything too substantial basically. Thanks for the reply, see you around.

I’m sure lots of people do, it’s a big country. But for the vast majority I imagine that the risk of getting in trouble for it, plus the risk of the one you paid for getting successfully blocked, plus the difficulty of finding out which ones are allowed to operate only because they share all your data with the authorities, plus the cost, plus the usual difficulties in finding a good vpn outweigh any desire to communicate freely with foreigners.

As the comment there says, the surprise is that not every instance is blocked yet.

But I’ve seen hardly any Chinese on the fediverse, so they probably don’t care that much. And it’s not just that I’ve stuck to the English-speaking parts, there’s been lots of Japanese and various European languages. I suppose even if it otherwise would have a chance to catch on there, Chinese users know that if it did it quickly would get blocked.

Talking about piracy on lemmy is still not illegal, in most places.

Teaching the beavers to use a microwave oven was of less benefit to the regional ecology than had been hoped for.

Welcome to anarcho-naturism.

It’s like that, except deep

Using “he” as the default singular 3rd-person pronoun goes back centuries, not decades. It was sexist to varying degrees, but never all that close to truly gender-neutral since modern English itself goes back only so far as times that have been pretty close to maximally sexist. But you can see it plainly in the King James Version of the Bible for example. You won’t find any singular “they” there in the sort of places where its use today is novel. There are of course plenty of places where its use is not novel at all.

The late 20th-century innovation was to write out “he or she” in the many places where it seemed necessary, because we didn’t have any single word that would fit. Using “they” to refer to “someone”, “anyone”, or other referents like that was perfectly normal as it has always been. The examples you provide are most naturally thought of in that way and would not spook the old people today. Using “they” to refer to “a student” or some other specified but unnamed individual would on the other hand often seem wrong to people just 30 years ago, but one might sometimes get away with it depending on the audience and the grammatical circumstances. Using “they” to refer to “Jason” or other such specifically known and named people in general was not done, never had been done except perhaps by the occasional poet from centuries past, and everyone would just wonder who you were talking about even if they’d been named earlier in the same sentence. Calling Jason a “she” would also seem odd, but not nearly as odd as calling them a “they”; and if what I’ve read is at all representative then roughly similar logic would’ve usually applied in centuries going back to fairly near the start of modern English.

As may still come in handy on occasion, that short-lived move towards using the hideously awkward phrase “he or she” gave many of us plenty of practice in simply avoiding all phrases that call for a gender-neutral 3rd-person pronoun. Whatever else might be said about it, being able to use “they” is certainly an improvement over that situation.

with each meal Gila grows more

biblical beast of ancient lore

Of course it is not that it’s somehow a “stand in for he or she” inherently in current usage. It’s just that it has recently replaced those other pronouns in places where for some time they had held near-universal prevalence among most users of this language.

Just as some people who’ve never known the old ways think those people who still aren’t accustomed to it are putting on an act when they say it’s weird and confusing, I suppose it would be easy for those who’ve lived through the change to mistakenly assume that young people are being disingenuous when they act as if there’s been no change for hundreds of years and there’s nothing to remark on here. If you’re old enough to have seen it happen, the change in usage seems very obvious. If not, perhaps it isn’t.

Not all of the complaints are motivated just by deliberate obstinance. I’m old enough that it was genuinely confusing for me at first in some situations, but young enough that I got used to it after some years. There are still plenty of people out there who haven’t done enough conversing with those who habitually default to “they” to get used to it. Not all of them are as old and cranky as Mr. Stallman.

I don’t really have a preference myself, but Richard Stallman’s continued insistence that “per” is the right answer is the example that comes to mind.

As he puts it, “most languages have genderless singular third-person pronouns which are distinct from the plural pronouns. English deserves to have them too.”

Perhaps in a hundred years, once the old way of making the distinction is long forgotten, a new one will arise.

Obviously it’s been used in some grammatical situations as a singular third-person pronoun since forever. It’s just as easy to come up with example phrases that would not sound in any way odd to a 20th-century person as it is to come up with examples from the 17th century. But its recent popularity as an all-purpose stand-in for “he” and “she” is indeed unprecedented, and even if it weren’t it’d be a notable change.

The dangers of the bear zone aren’t nearly as bad as they’re made out to be. I haven’t been attacked by a bear in weeks.

Nah. Maybe twenty years tops. That so many people fell for the fallacious line of argument you’re thinking of was part of the difficulty in trying to push for any of the various theoretically “better” choices that are still available should humanity unexpectedly swerve in the direction of caring about such things.

Unfortunately you’re at least ten years too late in trying to get people to ask themselves this question