or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Court grants Apple's motion to dismiss Siri misrepresentation lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court grants Apple's motion to dismiss Siri misrepresentation lawsuit - Page 2

post #41 of 76
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Come on people, not all judges are male.

 

And if that mattered to the argument in any capacity, I’m sure we’d apologize for it.

 

Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

The argument that you use "he" or "his" as genderless singulars is nonsense, no serious person does that.

 

No, all European and European-derived languages and cultures do that. It’s also irrelevant to the point we’re making.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #42 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, all European and European-derived languages and cultures do that. It’s also irrelevant to the point we’re making.

Grammar Girl has 3 pages on this usage, which is considerably longer than most of her blog posts, which clearly makes this more complex than an Crowley wants to admit (or perhaps even realizes). I switch between both they and he, choosing the one that sounds best for the sentence, but for official writings, like say a cover letter I would use the verbose he or she. I almost never use s/he since it's ugly.

Most of my teachers were woman and they are the ones that taught me (and everyone else) to use he when the gender is unknown. Now all of a sudden I'm a sexist pig for it even though gender never crossed my mind.

Crowley's comments reminds me of this scene from South Park.




PS: What's funny is that most of the judges I seem to read about are women but I chose the gender-agnostic form of he instead of just assuming it was a women, which would have been my first guess.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/15/14 at 2:55pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #43 of 76
Or y'know, you could have said "the judge" or read the article properly since "Claudia" is pretty clearly a woman. Was no need to say he or his. Your fault. End of.

Facebook is in no way relevant to this point, whatever the size of it user base. Bizarre that you think it is.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #44 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Or y'know, you could have said "the judge" or read the article properly since "Claudia" is pretty clearly a woman. Was no need to say he or his.

1) I'm not sure why you think that necessity is a requirement. I certainly didn't need to say "the judge" either, when a shorter, common gender-agnostic pronoun was available.

2) Your true sexist nature is really shining through here today.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/15/14 at 4:29pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #45 of 76
I'm not sure how you think your argument, which rests on grammar, in any way implies I'm a sexist. Classic case of attempting to turn a mirror on your accuser, but a clear case of bullshit.

You're defensiveness belies your guilt. You could have just taken the original point as a correction, an additional piece of information, but instead you took umbrage and tried to justify yourself.

A casual assumption that the judge was male isn't the most awful crime in the world, I don't know why you don't just admit it and move on. Not buying your excuses.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #46 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I'm not sure how you think your argument, which rests on grammar, in any way implies I'm a sexist. Classic case of attempting to turn a mirror on your accuser, but a clear case of bullshit.

You're defensiveness belies your guilt. You could have just taken the original point as a correction, an additional piece of information, but instead you took umbrage and tried to justify yourself.

A casual assumption that the judge was male isn't the most awful crime in the world, I don't know why you don't just admit it and move on. Not buying your excuses.

It's sexist because you can't conceive of the two letters 'h' plus 'e' or the sound /ˈhiː/ to mean anything other than a male despite the overwhelming evidence and history of this being used as a gender-agnostic pronoun. You read the word he and came to the erroneous conclusion that I don't think women can be judges. That's on you.

Do you even realize that about a quarter of the world's languages use grammatical gender? Do you know what gender is chosen when there is a mix of male and female objects? It's male, but I have a strong suspicion you aren't protesting the existence of these 1500 languages. Is hypocrite a gender neutral term?

BTW, I oft use phrases like "What are you guys doing?" to refer to a group of individuals. This could be an all male, mixed, or even all female group. Here is how the NOAD3 defines it.

guy |gī|
noun
informal a man: he's a nice guy.[mid 19th cent.]
• (guys) people of either sex: you guys want some coffee?

This is not just some fluke entry in one dictionary so I guess you need to get busy writing all these guys to let them know how sexist they are¡ hehe

Here's an idea: Next time why not wait until someone actually makes a sexist remark.


PS: Since you think words can only have one meaning you probably should get on your soapbox to get people to stop calling a cigarette a fag or maybe you are selective about making foolish statements?
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/15/14 at 4:58pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #47 of 76
Weird argument you make. You're appealing to grammatical gender when he, she and it are at the very root of grammatical gender. And you used the wrong one. Guy has informally come to be a gender neutral term in a way that he hasn't, so I don't accept that premise, or the fumbling accusation that I only understand one meaning for words. Nonsense.

A simple correction. Take it as supplementary information if you want, I don't care for your defensiveness and this bonkers attempt to make a grammar dispute into an accusation of sexism. Even if I'm wrong (I'm not) then I'm just that, wrong, not sexist. Moronic conflation of issues.

Done.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #48 of 76
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Do you even realize that about a quarter of the world's languages use grammatical gender? Do you know what gender is chosen when there is a mix of male and female objects? It's male, but I have a strong suspicion you aren't protesting the existence of these 1500 languages. Is hypocrite a gender neutral term?

 

When I learned that plural words in German default to the female definite article, I started the Campaign Against Women’s Plurality Of Otherwise Predictable Word-based Object W…identification. 

 

CAWPOOPWOW.

 

“How’s that working out?”

I get daily death threats from feminist groups.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #49 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Weird argument you make. You're appealing to grammatical gender when he, she and it are at the very root of grammatical gender. And you used the wrong one. Guy has informally come to be a gender neutral term in a way that he hasn't, so I don't accept that premise, or the fumbling accusation that I only understand one meaning for words. Nonsense.

A simple correction. Take it as supplementary information if you want, I don't care for your defensiveness and this bonkers attempt to make a grammar dispute into an accusation of sexism. Even if I'm wrong (I'm not) then I'm just that, wrong, not sexist. Moronic conflation of issues.

Done.

1) If he hasn't ever been used in an gender-agnostic way then why would there have been only a recent change to start using a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent?

2) Yes, guy has come to used in a certain way whilst he has been used in that same way for a long term and was taught to most readers here in that way, but that is beside the point. What matters is that you think I don't believe women can be judges and that my usage had to only refer to men despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

3) I had thought by now you would have actually educated yourself. Here is NOAD3 again.

he |hē|
pronoun [ third person singular ]
used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified: everyone liked my father—he was the perfect gentleman.
• used to refer to a person or animal of unspecified sex (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by “he or she” or “they”): every child needs to know that he is loved.
any person (in modern use, now chiefly replaced by “anyone” or “the person”): he who is silent consents.

Look at that, just like with guys the term can be used without specifying or assuming a gender.

4) You accused me of being a bigot and you don't like that I'm defending my use of the language? Would you rather I just say "A women belongs in the kitchen"*?



* An actual example of a sexist comment.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/15/14 at 5:13pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #50 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
Except that’s not what he said at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
I see no issues with his wording.

 

Hm, okay, maybe I'm reading too much into her remarks. My concern is her comment that Apple never claimed Siri would work "100% of the time." Am I wrong to think that was opening the door to misleading advertising? "Hey, our ad said you can drive around in this car, but we never said the brakes would work '100% of the time!'"

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

You made your comment without caring, and yet assumed male as default.  That matters.  You shouldn't.

 

Most "experts" say the exact opposite, that "he" is the accepted pronoun when the sex is unknown. The group of writers right outside my door tell me that professional style guides still say exactly that. The quote below comes from a source of unknown expertise, but I include it because the excellent description of the issue ends with the conclusion that there are OTHER ways to handle the pronoun issue but not necessarily BETTER ways!

 

From http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/grammar-rules-for-he-she-usage.html:

 

For years, if the gender of an individual referred to in a sentence is unknown, “he” would be used as the genericpronoun.

  • “We don’t know who started the fire,” a police officer might say, “but he will be held responsible.”

It is understood, by both the police officer and any listeners, that “he” could refer to either a woman or a man.

However, as culture changes, so does the language along with it, and many believe that the exclusive use of “he” for a person of unknown gender is sexist. There are a few options in this situation.

  • An archaic way of dealing with the issue is to use “one,” as in “One never knows what one can expect.”

Using this pronoun is often clunky and results in some strange-sounding sentences.

  • “He or she” can be used in moderation, but it cannot be used too many times at once: “he or she knows that if he or she needs to talk, he or she can visit his or her professor.”
  • Some use “they,” but this word cannot be used with a singular antecedent—it is only used with plurals.

Sometimes rewriting a sentence may help, but unfortunately you will at some point be forced to make a choice between sexist, clunky, or technically incorrect!

post #51 of 76
"In modern use chiefly replaced..."

End of argument. Your language was at best archaic with a sexist implication, at worst overtly sexist. In either case, it would be better reworded to avoid ambiguity, especially since the judge's gender was hardly unspecified. Just read the article.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #52 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

"In modern use chiefly replaced..."

 

I hope we don't adopt the ridiculous Facebook model of using "they" because English lacks a singular gender-neutral pronoun. It's wrong and makes this stupid language even stupider by adding even MORE ambiguity to perceived meanings -- like, trying to figure out just what the hell the judge meant when they said "100% of the time."

 

(See that? I not only made the point, but brought the discussion back on-topic!)

post #53 of 76
Nicely done :-)

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #54 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Hm, okay, maybe I'm reading too much into her remarks. My concern is her comment that Apple never claimed Siri would work "100% of the time." Am I wrong to think 
that was opening the door to misleading advertising? "Hey, our ad said you can drive around in this car, but we never said the brakes would work
'100% of the time!'"

Your new car could break down. Everything we make has the potential to fail but your purchase agreement and the law protect you from this. I forget exactly what their complaint was but I recall when I originally it was unfounded. As consumers they had the right to return the product within the allotted time frame if the product (which includes the Siri service) didn't live up to their needs.

I was someone that did return their iPhone 4S because of a poor user experience. I was unable to connect to Siri reliably (and because cellular chip issues were causing my battery to drain too quickly) I, like millions others that weekend, was trying ask Siri all the stupid questions. figured I would buy in a month or so when issues got ironed out. I ended up keeping my iPhone 4 until the iPhone 5 came arrived. Apple not lost about $750 in revenue on me but it cost them to have to deal with me and take back a device to Refurbish that was probably perfectly fine after about a month.

When it comes to language how is Siri suppose to be 100% correct? Even if Apple had directly stated Siri fully understands every logical aspect of human language one shouldn't expect Siri to be 100% accurate all the time because there are dialects, accents, laziness, and speech impediments that would affect Siri's ability to understand what is being stated. Before the words can be processed the waveforms need to be converted into words. This seems like a far way off; I'd just be happy with the iPhone not making distant background noise sound oddly loud to people on the other end of the line.


PS: I seem to recall reading Stephen Hawking's A Briefer History of Time where I think he mentioned getting a new electric train set as a child that was in less than perfect condition when it arrived, but in those days he had little recourse to have it fixed. I think we live in a time with excellent consumer protection laws.
Quote:
Most "experts" say the exact opposite, that "he" is the accepted pronoun when the sex is unknown. The group of writers right outside my door tell me that professional style guides still say exactly that. The quote below comes from a source of unknown expertise, but I include it because the excellent description of the issue ends with the conclusion that there are OTHER ways to handle the pronoun issue but not necessarily BETTER ways!

From http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/grammar-rules-for-he-she-usage.html:

For years, if the gender of an individual referred to in a sentence is unknown, “he” would be used as the genericpronoun.
  • “We don’t know who started the fire,” a police officer might say, “but he will be held responsible.”


It is understood, by both the police officer and any listeners, that “he” could refer to either a woman or a man.

However, as culture changes, so does the language along with it, and many believe that the exclusive use of “he” for a person of unknown gender is sexist. There are a few options in this situation.
  • An archaic way of dealing with the issue is to use “one,” as in “One never knows what one can expect.”


Using this pronoun is often clunky and results in some strange-sounding sentences.

  • “He or she” can be used in moderation, but it cannot be used too many times at once: “he or she knows that if he or she needs to talk, he or she can visit his or her professor.”
  • Some use “they,” but this word cannot be used with a singular antecedent—it is only used with plurals.

Sometimes rewriting a sentence may help, but unfortunately you will at some point be forced to make a choice between sexist, clunky, or technically incorrect!
(your HTML formatting is holding for some reason)

As I mentioned to Crowley earlier I think style guides mostly suggest against it for formal writing, but they also suggest against "he or she" and "they" for reasons in your last two bullet points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

"In modern use chiefly replaced..."

End of argument. Your language was at best archaic with a sexist implication, at worst overtly sexist. In either case, it would be better reworded to avoid ambiguity, especially since the judge's gender was hardly unspecified. Just read the article.
What you're claiming now is moving the goal posts. Your claim was that I was sexist and your repeatedly defended your position that it didn't exist in the way I stated and proved. I even mentioned that it has been replaced early on in this conversation and even explained why I intermix this common, gender-agnostic terms.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/15/14 at 6:19pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 76
The goalposts haven't moved, I'm still claiming what you said has an inherent sexism, intended or not. I've just modified it in line with your own explanations, which I find dubious, but I don't care about enough to argue.

Not he. She. Or, in general neutral terms, the judge.

Exactly as I said from the start.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #56 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

The goalposts haven't moved, I'm still claiming what you said has an inherent sexism, intended or not. I've just modified it in line with your own explanations, which I find dubious, but I don't care about enough to argue.

Not he. She. Or, in general neutral terms, the judge.

Exactly as I said from the start.

1) No, you said I was being sexist for not considering the judge could be a women. When I explained the how he could be gender-agnostic you denied that was a possibility claiming the only option was that I didn't think a women could be a judge. You altered the argument.

2) How can someone be unintentionally bigoted by using the word he, guys or fag, as noted examples in this conversation? One can be unintentionally offended by the use of these terms when ignorance fails in one's comprehension, but the person making the comment is either believes in their prejudice of they don't, and none of it has to do with the arrangement of letters or way the sound waves vibrate the bones in your ears that make the words cursed*.


* There is a South Park episode on that, too.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/15/14 at 7:00pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #57 of 76
I didn't deny it was a possibility ("no serious person does that" implies that there might be non-serious people who do) just stated that I thought you claiming it was nonsense. I still do. No goalposts have been moved. But having arrived at a stalemate, I'll give you a "best case" that takes you at your word, even though I don't really believe it.

Did I say "unintentionally bigoted"? In any case, you don't think a person can use language that has a sexist connotation without intending the sexism (or racist, or in any other way prejudiced)? You don't think unintended slurs could be casually tossed around with no consideration of the implication? I guess you are 100% earnest all well-considered with everything you say, right? Of course not, people use language shortcuts all the time, and can end up implying things they don't actually mean. They may not be sexist people, but they're using language rooted in sexism, such as "man" to mean person, or (if you must) "he" to mean they. It's not evil, but it merits correction.
Edited by Crowley - 2/15/14 at 8:02pm

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #58 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I didn't deny it was a possibility ("no serious person does that" implies that there might be non-serious people who do) just stated that I thought you claiming it was nonsense. I still do. No goalposts have been moved. But having arrived at a stalemate, I'll give you a "best case" that takes you at your word, even though I don't really believe it.

Did I say "unintentionally bigoted"? In any case, you don't think a person can use language that has a sexist (or racist, or in any other way prejudiced) connotation without intending the sexism? You don't think in intended slurs could be casually tossed around with no consideration of the implication? I guess you are 100% earnest all well-considered with everything's you say, right? Of course not, people use language shortcuts all the time, and can end up implying things they don't actually mean. They may not be sexist, but they're using language rooted in sexism, such as "man" to mean person, or "he" to mean they. It's not evil, but it merits correction.

1) If you honestly believe I don't think judges can be female then you really need to pay more attention.

2) What you wrote was, "...has an inherent sexism, intended or not…." Not intended can also be stated as unintended or unintentional, and sexism is type of bigotry. Pretty fucking simple.

3) Wow, you are really not comprehending the difference between a writers intention and the reader's interpretation and you really need to read more if you think how you interrupt something is what the writer must have implied, but it does shed a lot of light on why this conversation was started by you in the first place.

4) The core of the issue is for some unknown reason you believe if you infer something that it must have been implied. Your entire premise is unsound and is logically no different from any other case of jumping to a conclusion that purports to know the thoughts of another without any evidence to prove it.

5) A shortcut in language is now proof of underlying bigotry? The WTF-o-meter just red-lined. You do know what shortcut means, right?

6) So what if a language was patriarchal (a topic I already mentioned earlier) and still has roots to it in modern vernacular? Most are, but if that's a problem for you then you need to stop writing, reading and speaking right now because all you're dong is supporting its inherent sexism? Oh wait, you're fine because when you use English you're not thinking of sexist thoughts (even though this whole conversation was started because you were thinking about sexism).

7) The intention of the writer is what's important, not some superficial notion of the graphemes and phonemes holding some power that when scribed or uttered make you feel all weird inside. If you want to get upset by the terms man, guys, he, harlot, and tens of thousands of other words you go right ahead but stop making an ass out of yourself by claiming your inference equals an immobile implication.


I have no idea if any of this is getting through to you but I hope it does and I've been patient with you despite your rampant ignorance and libel remarks. I'm hoping you're just an assassin and not really this dense. (see what I did there?)

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #59 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
As I mentioned to Crowley earlier I think style guides mostly suggest against it for formal writing

 

Just out of curiosity, not that it really matters, do you know off the top of your head which style guides say DON'T use "he?" The ones that say "do" are journalism-oriented, Associated Press and… can't remember who publishes the other one. My English Professor former acquaintance would probably say "Shut up and go away!" and tell us we're all idiots for arguing about it instead of going outside to play! :)

post #60 of 76
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

My English Professor former acquaintance would probably say Shut up and go away!”…

 

I knew your English professor? ;)

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #61 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I'm not sure how you think your argument, which rests on grammar, in any way implies I'm a sexist. Classic case of attempting to turn a mirror on your accuser, but a clear case of bullshit.

You're defensiveness belies your guilt. You could have just taken the original point as a correction, an additional piece of information, but instead you took umbrage and tried to justify yourself.

A casual assumption that the judge was male isn't the most awful crime in the world, I don't know why you don't just admit it and move on. Not buying your excuses.
When someone attacks you The natural thing is to defend yourself. Don't be a hater
post #62 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) If you honestly believe I don't think judges can be female then you really need to pay more attention.
I don't. Never outright said you did. But your language implied male as default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

2) What you wrote was, "...has an inherent sexism, intended or not…." Not intended can also be stated as unintended or unintentional, and sexism is type of bigotry. Pretty fucking simple.
The language being sexist is different from the person being sexist. You seem to be having difficult with this and are therefore taking this much more personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

3) Wow, you are really not comprehending the difference between a writers intention and the reader's interpretation and you really need to read more if you think how you interrupt something is what the writer must have implied, but it does shed a lot of light on why this conversation was started by you in the first place.
I comprehend it fine. Language is imprecise and people use it it in precise ways. The language chosen has an independent implication of the implications the writer intended. One of the those implications can be sexism. So we should be careful with what we say/write and be willing to accept correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

4) The core of the issue is for some unknown reason you believe if you infer something that it must have been implied. Your entire premise is unsound and is logically no different from any other case of jumping to a conclusion that purports to know the thoughts of another without any evidence to prove it.
The reader is quite an important part of the writing equation. If your words imply something you didn't mean then you should think about revising your words, lest they misrepresent your opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

5) A shortcut in language is now proof of underlying bigotry? The WTF-o-meter just red-lined. You do know what shortcut means, right?
Don't understand what you mean, or your consternation. My point is that the language used contains bigotry, and shortcuts lead to carelessness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

6) So what if a language was patriarchal (a topic I already mentioned earlier) and still has roots to it in modern vernacular? Most are, but if that's a problem for you then you need to stop writing, reading and speaking right now because all you're dong is supporting its inherent sexism? Oh wait, you're fine because when you use English you're not thinking of sexist thoughts (even though this whole conversation was started because you were thinking about sexism).
So if a task is hard you don't bother attempting it? "He" is a default is a pretty clear case of male bias, and an easy win to stop using. Pretty simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

7) The intention of the writer is what's important, not some superficial notion of the graphemes and phonemes holding some power that when scribed or uttered make you feel all weird inside. If you want to get upset by the terms man, guys, he, harlot, and tens of thousands of other words you go right ahead but stop making an ass out of yourself by claiming your inference equals an immobile implication.
The intention of the writer is the most important part of a piece of prose, sure. But the form and the choice of languages
is not unimportant. If your writing is littered with curse words and racial epithets because "that's just the way I talk, I'm not racist" then you'll get pretty short shrift.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I have no idea if any of this is getting through to you but I hope it does and I've been patient with you despite your rampant ignorance and libel remarks. I'm hoping you're just an assassin and not really this dense. (see what I did there?)
Libel? Come off it dude. Commenting on your language, attitude and sincerity in a conversation on a message board is not libellous. Or have I misunderstood your intention?

EDIT: I made a total hash up of the quoting first time, sorry if confusing.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #63 of 76
I see your point !!
I'm severely dyslexic people say things without realising the impact !
I right this with voice recognition so often make mistakes . Good luck with your argument
post #64 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Just out of curiosity, not that it really matters, do you know off the top of your head which style guides say DON'T use "he?" The ones that say "do" are journalism-oriented, Associated Press and… can't remember who publishes the other one. My English Professor former acquaintance would probably say "Shut up and go away!" and tell us we're all idiots for arguing about it instead of going outside to play! 1smile.gif

I have checked many this morning and they all seem to say that man and he are perfectly find when the gender is unknown and context allows for it. I did find that seemed to suggest against it by saying some writers don't use it and that CMOS prefers it, but it wasn't a direct no. It mostly talks about the awkward and ugly variations like he/she and s/he previously mentioned. Either way, a big mea culpa from me.

Quote:
APA does not recommend replacing "he" with "he or she," "she or he," "he/she," "(s)he," "s/he," or alternating between "he" and "she" because these substitutions are awkward and can distract the reader from the point you are trying to make. The pronouns "he" or "she" inevitably cause the reader to think of only that gender, which may not be what you in ten

• https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/14/

Quote:
So do not be ashamed of sometimes using man to include women, or making he do for she.
And, so long as you are not insensitive in other ways,

• http://www.economist.com/style-guide/political-correctness


Here is what Grammar Girl has to say on the matte which seems different from what is quoted above.
Quote:
...you should still at least consider the alternatives because all of the major style guides that I checked recommend against using "he" in a generic way. (I specifically checked MLA, APA, and Chicago, and I know I have seen it in others. The Associated Press allows "he," but also says it’s usually better to rewrite your sentence.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I don't. Never outright said you did. But your language implied male as default.

No, you said I was sexist. Now you're moving the goalposts again. I already brought up the fact about 25% of all languages includes gender as well as brought up the fact that guys can now be gender-agnostic which you feel is perfectly reasonable. Your issue was 1) assuming that I couldn't conceive of a female judge because I'm sexist, followed by 2) statements that he could not be used as a general-agnostic term.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #65 of 76
Somehow this discussion turned into a he said/he said fight. 1smile.gif
post #66 of 76
1) Never said that. Never thought that.
2) Didn't say that. Should not, not could not. Because it's not an adequately gender agnostic term; you would never knowingly refer to a woman as "he", but you would a man. If style guides say different then they're wrong.

But hey, why address something with straight up logic when you can just argue from the establishment and accuse people of moving goalposts.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #67 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

If style guides say different then they're wrong.

1) You just buried the WTF-o-meter again, which is impressive considering it was re-calibrated last night in Switzerland because of your comments yesterday. Let's ignore that you were using style-guides as proof yesterday to defend your point before v5v proved otherwise and just think about what language is for a moment. You're saying that these style guides are incorrect yet language isn't inherent right or wrong so if a style guide wants to say one should use then it's right for them because they say it's right for them. It's that simple, regardless of emotionally attached you are to it.

2) If you think people are sexist for using a term that has a gender associated with it — regardless of whether the writer is associating gender with it — then why aren't you rallying against languages that are considering more gender based than English. The majority of them give inanimate objects gender but not once have gotten up on your la plataforma improvisada (see what I did there?) to speak out against all these languages and the bigoted sexists that must be using it.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #68 of 76
Because I speak English, obviously, and I'm not on a crusade, just calling what I see.

Thoroughly tired of this nonsense now, it was a simple point - the judge is female so he is incorrect, and using he as a default belies sexist bias. I stand by that, and can't be bothered to engage with you about it any more. Continue to be a tool of a patriarchal norm without thinking it through if you insist; your defensiveness in appealing to style guides and features of other languages do you no favours.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #69 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

...using he as a default belies sexist bias. I stand by that…

Don't forget your hypocrisy when you said that guys was perfectly acceptable despite its original meaning.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #70 of 76
Hypocrisy hogwash, I never claimed that meanings can't change. Indeed, it's crucial to my point. At one time "he" may have been acceptable as the default because society deemed the male to be the default. That isn't the case any more, as your dictionary definitions illustrated "in modern use, chiefly replaced..."

You accuse me of moving the goalposts yet you keep throwing in these bizarre new angles of attack that make no sense.

I'm a sexist because I think the real world effect of words is more important than style guides and I'm a hypocrite because I think meanings of words change. Anything else?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #71 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Hypocrisy hogwash, I never claimed that meanings can't change. Indeed, it's crucial to my point. At one time "he" may have been acceptable as the default because society deemed the male to be the default. That isn't the case any more, as your dictionary definitions illustrated "in modern use, chiefly replaced..."

You accuse me of moving the goalposts yet you keep throwing in these bizarre new angles of attack that make no sense.

I'm a sexist because I think the real world effect of words is more important than style guides and I'm a hypocrite because I think meanings of words change. Anything else?

Modern use and chiefly, but are key here which in and of itself proves that I was correct without even having to look at the start of that definition which defines it as gender-agnostic (which you claimed was not possible) and the multiple style guides which v5v proves still prefer it over more clumsy tactics just to be politically correct.

You've also saying these professional style guides are wrong which is absolutely the dumbest thing you've stated in this thread.

If you had come at this from a stand point of actually defending against sexism you may have had a point to make her but you came at it as if sexism was rampant in simply used the term. You could have said you don't like the style guides use a male-based noun for gender-agnostic terms but you said they were wrong.

You also haven't considered how female actors prefer to be called actors, not actresses, which is using the long held male noun. I stated early on you need to look at yourself to see why you think everyone is sexist for using a male term. If actor and guys can become gender-agnostic then why not he. This all screams you being an bigot and a hypocrite, neither of which I care for.


PS: You've threatened to go leave this conversation on multiple occasions now and you're still here. I am perfectly fine with you digging your hole deeper but it does play into this hypocrisy and goal posts moving I've mentioned earlier.

PPS: Based on v5v's proving that it's still acceptable in the proper context I'm going to continue using it in the way I was taught by female teachers.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #72 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

*cough*

I love the insanity how some people who otherwise seem intelligent and rational can get so emotional over the graphemes and morphemes instead of the actual usage. Every single word is made up and the definition associated with it is taught and therefore can change. People today know the word harlot refers to a promiscuous women even though that is not considered a common use word, but it originally meant a young man. Why do Crowley and others guys with his mindset have such a problem with words changing and having multiple definitions. I'll never understand them but I certainly won't stop trying to get those guys to thinking objectively about language.

PS: In high school I saw a kid get beat up by a group of people by using the word bigger. I forget the exact context but he standing across the way from others in his group and he yelled it to them because something wasn't big enough. Maybe it was some banner, I honestly forget. There was nothing else in the sentence to indicate that he was being racist and had no history of such that I'm aware but it was said at the wrong time and heard in the wrong way that he got his ass beaten by a group of guys that heard something else. Why do some give the power to the word and not the intended meaning?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #73 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

[…] using he as a default belies sexist bias.

 

I'm sorry Crowley, but I think on this one it's not a matter of opinion, you're just incorrect. "He" as a default is in no way sexist at all, it is simply a grammatical convenience and is a formally recognized correct usage.

 

(BTW: Saying "In modern usage it is often replaced by…" does not necessarily endorse the replacement term as "correct," it merely reports that people use it. Lots of people say irregardless, but it's still wrong.)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Why do Crowley and others guys with his mindset have such a problem with words changing and having multiple definitions.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll tell you why *I* hate it: Because it hinders communication. When you use the word "sick" to mean impressive, unique and imaginative and I understand it to mean stricken with illness or disease, the potential for me to COMPLETELY misinterpret your message goes off the charts and I can't afford to keep buying bigger charts.

 

Okay so that's an example of slang vs. traditional usage, but you get the point. I'm just feeling too gay to waste time on a negative subject today! :)

post #74 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Modern use and chiefly, but are key here which in and of itself proves that I was correct without even having to look at the start of that definition which defines it as gender-agnostic (which you claimed was not possible) and the multiple style guides which v5v proves still prefer it over more clumsy tactics just to be politically correct.
Aesthetic quality over treating people with respect and as equals. Sorry, aesthetics loses. I find it absurd that you'd consider otherwise. Plus, clumsiness is not essential to political correctness anyway, that's a total fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You've also saying these professional style guides are wrong which is absolutely the dumbest thing you've stated in this thread.

If you had come at this from a stand point of actually defending against sexism you may have had a point to make her but you came at it as if sexism was rampant in simply used the term. You could have said you don't like the style guides use a male-based noun for gender-agnostic terms but you said they were wrong.
Hang on, you think it's be better if I said "I don't like sexism" compared to "I think sexism is wrong"? I consider that to be nuts and if that's your stance then I consider every criticism I've made to be doubly justified. Also, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "sexism was rampant" comment. I've been very clear throughout that sexism in the language is not the same as sexism in the meaning. I've stated it outright in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You also haven't considered how female actors prefer to be called actors, not actresses, which is using the long held male noun. I stated early on you need to look at yourself to see why you think everyone is sexist for using a male term. If actor and guys can become gender-agnostic then why not he. This all screams you being an bigot and a hypocrite, neither of which I care for.
What an absurd leap. If women want to claim gendered nouns and pronouns that's up to them, but I don't have to agree with them just because of their gender. Plenty more don't. I don't think it's a good idea to try to actively claim actor, or even guys (though since it has largely happened the latter is somewhat moot), as it creates confusion, and I think it reinforces the male as the norm rather than elevating the female.
This idea that a person can be sexist for having a different view on the evolution of language is frankly ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PS: You've threatened to go leave this conversation on multiple occasions now and you're still here. I am perfectly fine with you digging your hole deeper but it does play into this hypocrisy and goal posts moving I've mentioned earlier.
I threatened to leave? Even if I did, changing my mind makes me a hypocrite? Your grasping for avenues to discredit me is lame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PPS: Based on v5v's proving that it's still acceptable in the proper context I'm going to continue using it in the way I was taught by female teachers.
The fact that you rely wholly on external proof rather than internal logic and reasoning means I doubt we'll ever see the same way. So I'm not "threatening" (lol) to leave. I'm leaving. Good day to you.

P.S. The judge is definitely female, so I suggest you refer to her as she and her from now on. To be clear, this was evident in the original article and I pointed it out even before this exchange.
Edited by Crowley - 2/16/14 at 4:18pm

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #75 of 76
You both have a point however you do not seem to respect each other Point of view
People defend people every day we do not mean to it's just society is changing . But when you are aggressive and offensive and very very rude there is no excuse get back to the point of the Fred please and kiss and make up xxxx
post #76 of 76
Originally Posted by comley View Post
…get back to the point of the Fred please and kiss and make up xxxx

 

This is the best possible ending to the argument. I love it. :D

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Court grants Apple's motion to dismiss Siri misrepresentation lawsuit