Converation thread

Oh I’m sorry, did NATO roll tanks into Ukraine? Or was that Russia?

You just committed the Straw Man Fallacy – you debunked a position he never claimed to have, namely that Russia never rolled tanks into Ukraine. But did he ever claim that? No. You're putting words into his mouths because you can't debunk his actual position, and to be frank you should be a little embarrassed about it.

No their statement refers to the thought that NATO was starting WW3, which is false, alongside the fact that one of the two is creating the fighting forces, and it’s not NATO.

And is that claiming that Russia never rolled the tanks into Ukraine? No, he never claimed that. Whatever your thoughts about the claim he made, can you, for Heaven's sake, if you want to engage in conversation about this, debate the claims HE ACTUALLY MADE rather than ones HE DIDN'T? Plus, (English lesson here!) when the sex of a person is unknown, you refer to him with he/him/his, because they/them/their means a group of people, not just one. They changed the English language to stop offending sissies who are hurt emotionally by human communication – but if you want to be correct, persons of unknown sex are always assumed to be male, and entities such as ships, countries, etc, are referred to as "her". Don't contribute to the degradation of our Great Language.

An implication is not confirmation they thought they were adding the statement in there, they added that statement as an inside statement, not actually thinking they were debating that, because the fact that Russia sent tanks is really obvious.

Also, reverse English lesson, English is not a romantic language, nor has the neuter-word for someone of an unknown gender been “he/him” in over a century, not due to any attempt to appease queer people (though second-wave feminists did create the public support for the singular they), but because defaulting to he/him actually created probl…  Read moreems inside the US Congress when women first started to be legislators, leading to the beginning of the prominent use of the singular they. For much of history, the term “it” was actually used, but was removed by the common use of “it” for animals and objects, and that kinda sent the wrong message a bit.

They make these wonderful things called BOOKS – you really ought to open one sometimes – and if you flip one open that was written before the year 2000, ten to one it will use "he" for persons of unspecified gender, because that was accepted grammar convention at that time. I don't care if it was used because of females in Congress being offended by "he" – they can bloody resign if they're going to waste melodramatic tears over something so stupid as that – in fact, they should be impeached if they're that victimised and hyper, hyper sensitive.

You’ve used the singular they at least 40 different times over the course of our arguments, and the history of it goes back to 1375 from a medieval romance in MIDDLE ENGLISH called “William and The Werewolf”, which had little to no pushback by the public for 400 years. It’s popularization has drastically outdone that of a “he” neuter word, since that’s by design not a neuter word, and doesn’t match with the actual gender of at least half the population, so if anything, it’s an arbitrary rule itself. Spanish people could also use that exact…  Read more same logic to contest non-gendered object words in general too, despite both the neuter “he” and romantic wording being unnecessary and subject to worse misinterpretation than the singular “they” could ever have. Popularization happens overtime, and one of the two is winning for far more reasons than just social pressure and progressive movements, though it’s not about minorities alone, there are people that are “they”, so let’s just deal with it and just choose an objectively superior neuter pronoun: the singular “they”.

Yet the singular they creates less overall language confusion. Generally speaking, it’s a superior language term, and has overall done better when referring to a singular person since the confusion of their gender disappears, as the assumption could easily be created that the person in reference is a male, when they really might not be at all. The confusion of that being a group also doesn’t really apply since the basic context of the sentence negates its own confusion, and as such, is just generally better. Not only is it including all, but it’s functional and it clears up…  Read more confusion across the board. Your main false assumption is that the language of today must remain static, but social trends and changes in functional usage drastically overpower that assumption/desire of yours, as new words are created and used in different ways all the time. That’s what makes language unique and interesting; its ability to change as society deems it fit. Society deems the singular they fit, and that gender identity is both scientifically and socially valid, thereby increasing and reinforcing the functionality and value of the neuter phrase in the first place. Welcome to new language, deal with it.

Your main false assumption is that the language of today must remain static

Yes, that would be an ideal principle for the English-Speaking Peoples. Our language is beautiful and ancient, one of the greatest mankind ever created, and I do not wish to change our sophisticated tongue into the inner-city punk-slang of Neanderthal-like grunts. We have quite literally gone from "Salutations my good sir," to "Sup BRA!" and it is self-evidently a horrible, disgusting, humiliating thing for America. Imagine if instead of "I know not what course others may take, but as for me,…  Read more give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry had said "Y'know, I don't know what you guys wanna do, but I kinda wanna fight for freedom and stuff a little bit, even if, you know, I died or something like that." Take your selection – which is more beautiful and brilliant, which communicates, in a more concise and eloquent way, the exact same ideals? Obviously it's the former! Changes in language should be resisted, and the conventions of our great tongue jealously defended against all threats and all attacks. We, as human beings, are growing fundamentally more stupid, emotional, irrational, and flat-out absurd with the passage of time – take, for example, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which was in that day considered to be easily understandable by teenagers – it is now considered the Flesch-Kincaid reading level of a Bachelor in some prestigious college! And according to new studies that are emerging, the average human IQ, now 110, is going to change to just 70 in the United States by 2100 – with the primary loss in the section of the human brain dedicated to language. It's no surprise at all to me – what with our language being attacked by narcissistic ego-maniacs who want even the most fundamental connections of our language to revolve around their fickle emotions and feelings so they do not get offended. Utterly absurd! These people have an ego that cannot even begin to be fully understood. The world, our language, our society, must in their view revolve around not offending them. These sissies deserve to be offended for this nonsense! Next time you walk through the grocery store and you see some inner-city punks or teenagers, spewing "y'know; like, sorta; kinda; cool; awesome; endless F-bombs, ad infinitum" – consider what our language once was, and remember that it has only become so uncivilised because a hundred years ago, individuals like yourself decided to "go with the flow" and allow for it to be changed to comform to the comfort of stupid people.

My friend, this was about the singular they five seconds ago, how the heck did this turn into a rant about English supremacy? For starters, our language is the most dominant in certain areas of the world because that language was mostly forced or just spread naturally in its home countries. English is widely considered to be one of the most annoying and complicated of languages, though it may have a lot of eloquence to it, that’s also kinda what frustrates others in general. Overall if we’re ranking languages as “most popular = greatest”, then Mandarin Chinese is on…  Read more top. Slang is just more commonly used because formality is less of a priority as time has gone on, since most people of the younger age are focused on surviving, entertainment, and purpose rather than working to do so, creating new skills, and doing a monotonous job. Formality itself just isn’t as much of a priority, so normal speaking becomes less formal, but when formality is needed for a speech or an actual job report, it will remain formal no matter what, because it creates logistical nightmares and just requires formality to work. No one’s denying that, Gen-Z and millennials don’t deny that, they’re just less formal in the everyday sense. Changes in language have you the very language you look back on in the first place, if we resisted language change so fervently, we’d never have crossed past the clunky and obnoxious Middle English we once had. Common Sense was meant for teens or that time, because language was matching with that level of formality in speech, which now looks confusing to us because it’s wording and message is harder to convey to different times. That’s not really a bad thing, it’s just a way to show how we’ve changed overtime. The IQ comment is honesty just nonsensical since the IQ test itself hasn’t been updated in ages, and those models require the assumption of a lot aof things. New words also didn’t come around for the sole purpose of inclusivity, it’s just a generally functional thing, and honestly is superior in comparison, so to be truly honest, I have no worries.

It started when you wrote a sarcastic emotional unload about how necessary it is for our language to change, and what a beautiful and admirable and praiseworthy thing a language that evolves is, as an argument for using the singular they. So it all correlates. And I wanted to demonstrate clearly and boldly to you why we should resist changes in language – explaining my comment. Mandarin Chinese is certainly not the greatest language in the world – they have so many letters in their alphabet that it takes years upon years upon years of ceaseless study to gain a basic comprehension…  Read more of it, whereas our 26-letter alphabet is far more efficient and easy to learn. If other individuals find English to be annoying because it's too eloquent for them, that should serve as a demonstration of just how advanced and sophisticated our native tongue is in relation to the other language around the globe. I understand that Gen-Z does not prioritise formality – but rather than seeing it as a wise decision, as you apparently do, to reject the eloquence of our language in exchange for some ape-like gesture-based means of communication with grunting noises such as "Sup" and "bruh" – I see it as yet another mark of the unparalleled laziness of this generation. If you are too lazy to even speak your language accurately, words cannot describe how lazy you are. And today's workplace standards of "formality" are not distantly satisfactory – contractions still abound in what are supposed to be formal reports in business, higher education, and numerous publications. Take, for example, news – the media writes as if we're five-year-olds rather than respecting us as adults who can form a coherent thought. As for your assertion that if changes in language had been resisted, we'd never have speech – I as a Christian disagree, as I do not believe in Darwinian evolution and am convicted that human beings were created with one language, that was coherent, from the beginning but at Babel were separated into different groups that spoke different ancient languages that slowly evolved into the modern tongues we see today. As for the IQ testing not being "updated in years" – I think it would be ridiculous and absurd, and an absolute humiliation for humanity, if we conceded that we've gotten so horribly stupid that we need a different means of testing intelligence because we as a species are no longer capable, for the most part, o comprehending what was easily understood just a generation ago. Instead of lowering our standards to suit the times, this generation must be rigorously pushed in the educations system and by parents to raise themselves back up to the standards of eloquence we had in the days of old – there must be standards. This generation is growing up lazy and useless because no one is pushing them to anything and they all think they're entitled. Rather than respecting this destructive and evil mentality, we should be encouraging these youngsters to rise from the depths of obscurity, put down their cans of Pringles, shut off the bloody television, and go accomplish something meaningful with their lives. Again, words cannot begin to describe, and I cannot begin to fathom, the ego of people who think our entire language needs to be overhauled so they can feel more comfortable using it. This all interrelates to the change of the singular instance of "they", because that is an unwarranted change in language that doubtlessly makes our speech far less eloquent.

English is actually ranked as one of the harder languages to learn, despite having 26 letters. Eloquence is different than complexity, and the slang Gen-Z uses is often only in the informal area, most often, normal conversation stays, and informal conversation is almost entirely among the youth and online where it matters very little, if at all. The “laziness” you claim is most problematic stems from both a sense of nihilism and lack of preparation for the world that’s getting more difficult to deal with by the day. You also quite literally just stated that these languages…  Read more “evolved”, proving my point that they do evolve and that as such, if we resisted that, we wouldn’t have the language we had even 500 years ago. The IQ test just generally hasn’t compensated for what’s happening right now and how people think differently than before, not that they think less or that they’re dumber, because the younger people DO know more than before in the last 50 years, it’s the application and higher requirements of jobs that sort of makes it seem the same, if not worse. The language itself doesn’t need overhaul, no one’s really debating that, people are just asking others not to say or to say certain different words, the EXACT same way that cursing is considered to you.

We are self-evidently stupider than we were even one generation ago. Gen-Z needs to grow a pair and accept our language for what it is.

Every generation has been self-evidently dumber overtime, that’s just generally how things happen as convenience increases.

Absurd. The generation after the invention of the Printing Press sure weren't stupider than their parents! The Founding Fathers were certainly more intelligent than the prior generation!

And yet complaints by older generations remain a near constant, that issue has remained through all time, even through literal Ancient Rome. The younger generations have always been slammed for being useless or too soft, but the more they’re accused of it, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hard times created strong people, we’ve had good times in our childhoods, while bad times raged outside, so of course they’re less prepared.

I never denied that the older generations have always been complaining about the younger ones – but in this generation, which I am a part of, you see even those YOUNGER than it complaining about its stupidity.

Same here, Gen-Z was kinda a sucky generation in youth, but I don’t really view stupidity as their fault in most every way. Once electronics came around, it seemed like a clean solution for millennials and Gen-X to just shove them in front of one so then they could scrape together enough money to survive, but their extremely addictive properties (something even adults fail to tear themselves away from) were kind of the fault of their creators for the purpose of profit, rather than the millenials or the kids themselves. We’ve got problems, but I think much of that lies in addiction and depression when they look out the window at the world they’re gonna have to deal with.

Yet they don't deal with it. Instead, they sit around watching Game of Thrones and eating Pringles because they know they can scare by on government welfare rather than actually contributing to society.

That’s a rather crass generalization, but no, most of them are actually trying, mostly in idealistic and ambitious ways like trying to study psychology, move to Europe, get a sports scholarship or work in cosmetics. These examples are also generalizations, these are just the most common ones I hear, but we have a higher rate of laziness, not even close to everyone IS lazy, and the welfare system only really traps people because it rescinds support the moment people get a working job, shoving them back into welfare once they lose the ability to afford their health. They don’t “do nothing”, I’ve seen a lot of stuff get done, they’ve just got addiction and depression problems that lessen the amount of people who do try.

It's a generalisation based on dear experience, sir, dear, dear, experience.

Experience that I share, but I don’t view the problem to be their own laziness, I view the problem to be what perpetuates it in the first place, and the far back roots of this issue.