🤣👍🏼 Amen, Awoman, Amazing

[Mountain_Soldier]

How the hell would you know unless that person comes up and spells it out for everyone? Are they supposed to act like a vegan and let everyone within 50 miles know of their preference? It’s ■■■■■■■ stupid.

[fallenturtle]

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

Where? Please show me so I can correct the post. I don’t see it.

As noted in a previous reply, I don’t expect you to see.

But here:

@fallenturtle

it just replaces gendered words in the rules with nongendered ones.

What I do expect is typical lib wordsmithing to tapdance away the mess you’re making for yourself.

Oh, I see the disconnect here. It’s not changing the rules of what words can be used, its changing the words used in the rules. It’s like changing the sentence, “If you are in trouble, call a policeman” to “If you are in trouble, call a police officer”. The meaning is the same.

[Guvnah]

@fallenturtle

@Guvnah

What I do expect is typical lib wordsmithing to tapdance away the mess you’re making for yourself.

… It’s not changing the rules of what words can be used, its changing the words used in the rules

As predicted.

[fallenturtle]

@Mountain_Soldier

How the hell would you know unless that person comes up and spells it out for everyone? Are they supposed to act like a vegan and let everyone within 50 miles know of their preference? It’s ■■■■■■■ stupid.

That’s its own issue. The vast majority of trans people will let you know if it comes up and won’t be offended unless you are intentionally misgendering them.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Well, for example:

“Much more deadly to the English language — and the American soul — were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Co.’s decision to erase the flesh-and-blood words “father, mother, son, daughter” and the like in favor of assembly-line denotations like “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.”

What a bunch of hyperbolic pearl-clutching nonsense. This reaction is just as absurd as ending a prayer with “awoman”.

erase the flesh-and-blood words

That is not a reaction. That is what Nancy & Company are doing.

But I agree … it IS nonsense.

[fallenturtle]

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

@Guvnah

What I do expect is typical lib wordsmithing to tapdance away the mess you’re making for yourself.

… It’s not changing the rules of what words can be used, its changing the words used in the rules

As predicted.

As predicted.

Instead of trying to lay a sassy burn why don’t you just prove me wrong?

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

Which Democrats and which words that denote differences in gender do they want to ban?

…

… it just replaces gendered words in the rules with nongendered ones.

So you answered your own question.

That’s not banning. Those words can still be used.

Semantics. If the words are not to be used and other words used in their place, it has the same effect as a ban. How can you or anyone else endorse this crap with a straight face?

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Well, for example:

“Much more deadly to the English language — and the American soul — were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Co.’s decision to erase the flesh-and-blood words “father, mother, son, daughter” and the like in favor of assembly-line denotations like “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.”

What a bunch of hyperbolic pearl-clutching nonsense. This reaction is just as absurd as ending a prayer with “awoman”.

erase the flesh-and-blood words

That is not a reaction. That is what Nancy & Company are doing.

But I agree … it IS nonsense.

That’s your opinion. I think such a reaction is very dramatic and hyperbolic.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

Which Democrats and which words that denote differences in gender do they want to ban?

…

… it just replaces gendered words in the rules with nongendered ones.

So you answered your own question.

That’s not banning. Those words can still be used.

Semantics. If the words are not to be used and other words used in their place, it has the same effect as a ban. How can you or anyone else endorse this crap with a straight face?

No it doesn’t. If I change the sentence, “If you are in trouble, call a policeman” to “If you are in trouble, call a police officer”. Am I banning the use of the word policeman? Of course not. You can still use that word. You can even call a police officer a policeman and unless they aren’t a man, probably won’t care.

[Samm]

What reaction? Laughter? You are the only one being dramatic and hyperbolic.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

Which Democrats and which words that denote differences in gender do they want to ban?

…

… it just replaces gendered words in the rules with nongendered ones.

So you answered your own question.

That’s not banning. Those words can still be used.

Semantics. If the words are not to be used and other words used in their place, it has the same effect as a ban. How can you or anyone else endorse this crap with a straight face?

No it doesn’t. If I change the sentence, “If you are in trouble, call a policeman” to “If you are in trouble, call a police officer”. Am I banning the use of the word policeman? Of course not. You can still use that word. You can even call a police officer a policeman and unless they aren’t a man, probably won’t care.

The story is the same, only the details are different. It would be like telling the story of the wolf and the tree pigs only replacing them with mice and a cat.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

What reaction? Laughter? You are the only one being dramatic and hyperbolic.

lol, what?

bloodless, generic terminology that erases the reality of sex entirely

Much more deadly to the English language — and the American soul

[Samm]

Yep. All true. But I never said those things.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

Which Democrats and which words that denote differences in gender do they want to ban?

…

… it just replaces gendered words in the rules with nongendered ones.

So you answered your own question.

That’s not banning. Those words can still be used.

Semantics. If the words are not to be used and other words used in their place, it has the same effect as a ban. How can you or anyone else endorse this crap with a straight face?

No it doesn’t. If I change the sentence, “If you are in trouble, call a policeman” to “If you are in trouble, call a police officer”. Am I banning the use of the word policeman? Of course not. You can still use that word. You can even call a police officer a policeman and unless they aren’t a man, probably won’t care.

The story is the same, only the details are different. It would be like telling the story of the wolf and the tree pigs only replacing them with mice and a cat.

Explain this analogy to me please because it sounds like you agree with me.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

Yep. All true. But I never said those things.

My bad, I thought you said, “That is not a reaction. That is what Nancy & Company are doing”.

So you don’t think the rule wording changes are “deadly to the English language — and the American soul”? Great!

[PhilipNolan]

@fallenturtle

My bad, I thought you said, “That is not a reaction. That is what Nancy & Company are doing”. So you don’t think the rule wording changes are “deadly to the English language — and the American soul”? Great!

I think it’s a waste of time and stupid, there are more important things to focus on. How many manhours were wasted coming up with this crap? What’s even worse is people like you trying to defend this nonsensical BS, for what? So some ones feelings don’t get hurt? Well ruck-up, some one is always getting their feelings hurt.

[fallenturtle]

@PhilipNolan

@fallenturtle

My bad, I thought you said, “That is not a reaction. That is what Nancy & Company are doing”. So you don’t think the rule wording changes are “deadly to the English language — and the American soul”? Great!

I think it’s a waste of time and stupid, there are more important things to focus on. How many manhours were wasted coming up with this crap?

The rules were being updated for other reasons as well. I’m sure its partially symbolic and probably virtue signalling. But at the same time, in the last decade we’ve seen openly gay people join Congress and trans people have been elected to state legislatures, most likely in the coming decade we will see a trans person elected to the US House or Senate, and perhaps farther down the road we might have a non-binary member of Congress. Congress spends money on things you would probably consider useless all the time and relative to the budget this is a drop in the bucket. I personally think its a move in the right direction.

What’s even worse is people like you trying to defend this nonsensical BS, for what? So some ones feelings don’t get hurt?

I’m not so much arguing to defend this as much as I’m arguing against the fake news and hyperbolic reactions to it.

Well ruck-up, some one is always getting their feelings hurt.

“People die all the time, so why do we bother trying to save lives.”

manhours

I see what you did there.

[Samm]

I have explained it to you twice, there is no point in doing it again.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Yep. All true. But I never said those things.

My bad, I thought you said, “That is not a reaction. That is what Nancy & Company are doing”.

So you don’t think the rule wording changes are “deadly to the English language — and the American soul”? Great!

Why do you insist on misunderstanding me? I find what Nancy & company are doing to be absurd to the point of laughability. That does not mean what they are doing is not deadly to the English language and possibly the American soul. One can easily see that it is. Just try replacing those words in any great American novel and see what it does to the narrative.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

I have explained it to you twice, there is no point in doing it again.

Why are you trying to gaslight me when there’s a search function? This is the first time you mentioned three little pigs and the wolf being replaced with mice and cats (or dogs and cats like pre-edit).

But that’s fine. I’m just glad we agree this change in wording in the House rules doesn’t change anything other than the wording in the House rules.