24

Identity, p6

April 12, 2021 by Tim


Subscribe
Notify of
guest
39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Omians
Omians
26 days ago

Oh Ethan. such priorities lol

Mael
Mael
25 days ago
Reply to  Omians

At least he puts “give some space” above “need switch” – otherwise he would just storm in there…

Omians
Omians
25 days ago
Reply to  Mael

oh very much so

Bwauder
Bwauder
25 days ago
Reply to  Mael

Hopefully “need arms” , to um… play the switch, comes in there somewhere too.

Atros
Atros
25 days ago
Reply to  Bwauder

he can get those back for free though! He might have to *buy* a switch!

DrakeStarkiller
DrakeStarkiller
25 days ago
Reply to  Omians

DAMMIT Ethan priotities man

foducool
foducool
25 days ago
Reply to  Omians

that’s understandable, that means he has to go back in there in the awkward lair

Soag
Soag
25 days ago

Them? So there’s more than one bot now?

ShonaSoF
ShonaSoF
25 days ago
Reply to  Soag

While the phasing does traditionally imply a plural subject, we have to accept that word definitions change over time as society brings change into common parlance. For example ‘Meme’ has completely changed meaning in the last 10-15 years. ‘Text’ has become a verb. Personally, ‘on accident’ drives me up the wall, but it’s become common use. ‘They’ has always (in my lifetime of about 40 years) been an indicator when gender is unknown. “Look at this article and see what they had to say.” and it’s evolved into a more personal usage that covers unknown, unsure, and undefined gender.

_who_even_knowes_
_who_even_knowes_
25 days ago
Reply to  ShonaSoF

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ssingular-nonbinary-they As well as having it in the dictionary, Merriam webster wrote an article on the use of “they” in the modern context of referring to someone nonbinary or gender nonconforming. However, they note that that new usage isn’t even close to the first usage of the singular “they” – it’s been in usage since the 1300s to refer to someone with “unknown or unknowable gender” (as opposed to the more modern usage of known but nonbinary gender). “Unknown or unknowable gender” seems to fit pretty well here – changing of the language aside, this use of “they” has been… Read more »

Last edited 25 days ago by _who_even_knowes_
Jack0r
Jack0r
24 days ago

I think the usage of “unknown or unknowable gender” is still very much in use. E.g if you write about a process, where you don’t know who will take part in it. Like when someone has to sign something, and you know that someone will be one person, but you don’t have any more information on that person. Then you’ll refer to that person as “they”.

Ben
Ben
25 days ago
Reply to  ShonaSoF

I think the comedian John Finnemore makes the point about changing language well in this sketch about the word awesome and it’s changed usage.
https://youtu.be/scS-Z70e4Xo

rebmcr
rebmcr
25 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Yellow car

Jacob
Jacob
24 days ago
Reply to  Ben

“Terrific” is my go-to word for describing how language changes, thanks for helping me add Awesome to the list

no thanks nintendo
no thanks nintendo
25 days ago
Reply to  Soag

Comments like this are why I appreciate a rating system that still shows downvotes. It restores some faith in humanity to see this with a negative number below it.

Diovox
Diovox
25 days ago

Its very closed minded to enjoy seeing people who are inquiring about something being responded to negatively. You shouldn’t assume the posters inflection or tone just as you shouldn’t assume anything else about someone. A little empathy goes along way.

Mick
Mick
25 days ago
Reply to  Diovox

A little empathy goes a long way to knowing that insisting on a plural they in all contexts is rude, aside from just generally being incorrect, and is also often used in contexts wherein the insistence is used more to deny the existence of non-binary identities than any actual care for English grammar. I’m gonna assume you’re saying this more out of naivety; hopefully you’ll be better able to recognize the difference between genuine curiosity and “just asking questions” in the future.

Merendel
Merendel
25 days ago
Reply to  Mick

Not every native English speaker has an equally strong grasp on the language. Frankly our education system in the USA is garbage. People end up learning more from those around them and you can end up with spotty or inaccurate knowledge in many areas. This is something of an edge case. A valid use of language and non gender specific pronouns but not one that is every day usage in many area’s of society. Even 20 years ago this level of verbal gymnastics just to avoid assigning gender would get you funny looks from most of the population. Even now… Read more »

Harlequin
Harlequin
24 days ago
Reply to  Mick

Ah yes, because everybody has a perfect grasp of the English language. Surely nobody is a non-native English speaker that has only been taught that “they” is grammatically a form used for plural forms.

Way to make assumptions there bucko.

From Lima City with love
From Lima City with love
22 days ago
Reply to  Harlequin

Hi, Peruvian here. A little of internet taught me that by now “they” is for the singular non-binary. In spanish we have worse issues with our heavily gendered language. Example: “everybody” translates to “todos” (male), todas (female), and by now “todes” (non-binary, not officially accepted, not widely used yet).

mecklejay
mecklejay
25 days ago
Reply to  Soag

“Hey, [coworker], remember how we found that missing wallet yesterday? The owner didn’t have an ID in there. Did they ever come back and get it?”

We’ve been using “they” as an ambiguous singular for a long time. People are only complaining about it now because it’s being used by “the radical left”.

Eldest Gruff
Eldest Gruff
25 days ago
Reply to  mecklejay

Not to mention, it may correct in more than one way for the X1, as the ruler of a soverign nation. British nobility have used a royal ‘we’ as a singular pronoun to refer to the monarch for centuries.

Last edited 25 days ago by Eldest Gruff
RblDiver
RblDiver
25 days ago
Reply to  Eldest Gruff

To be fair, that’s less about any sort of social norms/gender identity/etc, and more about rulers claiming God to be on their side. “We are displeased” = “God and I are displeased.”

Freddie
Freddie
25 days ago
Reply to  mecklejay

“They” as in an unspecified member of the group “possible owners of the wallet”. Once the owner is identified, it’s no longer an ambiguous singular, but a specific singular.

Freddie
Freddie
22 days ago
Reply to  Freddie

wow – looks like a lot of people mistook my “this is why it still doesn’t sound right in my head” for a “that’s why you’re wrong” …

Anon A Mouse
Anon A Mouse
25 days ago
Reply to  Soag

“When the customer gets here, the package is for THEM. Make sure THEY get it.” It is entirely possible to refer to a singular entity with neutral pronouns. Assuming otherwise is being a pedantic douchebag, regardless of your views on gender.

Freddie
Freddie
25 days ago
Reply to  Anon A Mouse

To this, the pedanic douchebag would reply “sure, sure; it’s their package when they get here, but until they DO get here, the package is for ME!”

atlachan
atlachan
25 days ago
Reply to  Soag

This has same intellectual energy as:
“They/them is plural, so why would an individual call themself that anyways”
(twitter post)

Eldest Gruff
Eldest Gruff
25 days ago
Reply to  atlachan

*slow clap*

Christopher
Christopher
25 days ago
Reply to  Soag

Another example to add to the excellent ones already here:

A: “Hey, what do you know about the new employee starting next week?”
B: “Nothing, I heard they’re hiring someone for accounting, but haven’t heard anything else about them yet.”

Freddie
Freddie
25 days ago
Reply to  Christopher

C: *sniffs* “Gossiping again? Such a waste of time”

Last edited 25 days ago by Freddie
Seanbirch
Seanbirch
25 days ago

I think if you’re the only one of your species on an alien planet, a fucking pronoun is the last thing you’d worry about.
This whole issue really isn’t so much about identity as it is about language. For Hungarians, this discussion can’t even happen.

Eldest Gruff
Eldest Gruff
25 days ago
Reply to  Seanbirch

The issue in the comments section is about language. The issue for the X1 is about identity. While the English language’s oddities did kickstart the question of “what is my gender” and then “what is my name,” it has since branched from that into the broader question of “Who am I?”

I’m sure that Hungarians understand that names and gender are part of who we are as individuals, even if their language doesn’t gender its pronouns.

Eldest Gruff
Eldest Gruff
25 days ago

I’m trying to figure out if the Switch’s warranty covers your device becoming liberated from its human owner and gaining citizenship of a foreign nation without an extradition treaty.

So far, it’s looking like ‘no’. Damn, those Nintendo lawyers are thorough.

Tim Tucker
Tim Tucker
25 days ago
Reply to  Eldest Gruff

If only Nintendo had a good system for cloud saves… then he could just pick up an extra Switch lying around the shop and continue playing.

Eldest Gruff
Eldest Gruff
25 days ago
Reply to  Tim Tucker

Normally he could. But Article 8, section B of the warranty states that in this case, his Switch can only be a secondary system, not primary. Any attempts to turn his old Switch from Primary to Secondary requires a diplomatic agreement between a US Ambassador and the ambassador of the country which the primary Switch is taking refuge in.

As Automatia is a hostile nation, it’d probably just be easier to start from scratch.

Bwauder
Bwauder
24 days ago
Reply to  Eldest Gruff

So if X1/Gizmo could also find a way to make the Switch independently sentient, and liberate it from Nintendo contracts, could it sue Ethan to be emancipated and receive ongoing support payments?
The GROWING nation of Automatia.

7eggert
7eggert
24 days ago
Reply to  Bwauder

Gizmo could return the switch to it’s caretaker.

Leon
Leon
25 days ago

Like imagine being Captain Olimar on a planet full of Pikmin