They've been doing this definition thing for a long time, I personally think their accusations of Anti-Semetism based on this twisted definition had a large influence on the last UK elections, which has led to both major parties being pro-Israel now.
Hopefully immediate withdrawal to stop the bleeding from being terrorized and then in response showing a lack of respect for life on the reactive scale of a bully, which is also laid bare.
So I guess my answer to the question is perhaps a nation state for Palestine and all the responsibilities and protections that come with it. Responsibility for attacks made as a nation and protection from an international community with a shared interest in peace.
Just today’s thought. I don’t know the answer but it better come fucking fast.
Israel must withdrawal and continue to have rockets fired into its innocent civilian communities for the next 5 years. It’s the only peaceful option or something
Honestly, do this anyway. Default to they/them until someone requests otherwise. It's the best way to normalize it for people who don't present in an assumable way, without exposing yourself to the same level of potential retaliation that asking leads to.
True, it’s a good practice for those you don’t know. I think using it exclusively for the people they’ve known and worked with for years would send a clear message of disagreement with the policy. It’s also not something they can forbid, because it’s rightfully inclusive.
Please don't do this. This is just misgendering by default. The vast majority of people are exactly the gender they appear to be on the surface, and if they aren't, they'll let you know. I've only known one person who wasn't the gender they appeared (a very masculine-presenting enby), and they weren't offended at all when I misgendered them at first; they corrected me, I apologized, and that was the end of it.
However, if you call the wrong clearly-masculine "alpha male" or clearly-feminine "queen bitch" they/them, you're likely to get a violent reaction.
Gross. You care more about preserving the delicate feelings of bigoted snowflakes than actual vulnerable people.
It's not misgendering if you use non-gendered language. Non-gendered language is not gendered. Grammatical gender is idiotic and we'd be better off without it.
I completely agree. Gendered pronouns are not helpful and at this point only confuse things. I'm just glad English doesn't have gendered nouns, too, like Latin-based languages.
Anyway, the fact is that they/them has become "gendered" in the sense that it's now a preferred pronoun for a lot of people, mostly androgynous enbies, so its implicit meaning has changed. Sure, it's still used as a non-gendered pronoun for hypothetical people, but when used for a real, known person, it has the same implication as he/him or she/her - that they appear to be a certain gender, enby in this case.
I'm a clearly masculine person - I've got a beard and I wear masculine clothes. I personally wouldn't be offended, but I would think it very odd if someone saw me and thought they/them was an appropriate pronoun for me. If masculinity was as important to me as it is to most men, I could see myself getting offended at someone implying that I appear androgynous. Same as if an enby was referred to as he/him or she/her. Cisfolk's emotions are just as valid as valid as enbies'.
Enbys also use it as a personal pronoun, sure - but no one gets to dictate that it can no longer be used as a neutral pronoun for everyone of any gender.
English is my primary language, so yes, I'm aware of the historical use of they/them as a non-gendered pronoun for hypothetical people.
I'm also aware of the fluid nature of language. I'm still salty about "literally" becoming its own antonym, but I have to accept it because it's now part of English.
That being said, it's never been socially acceptable to use they/them for a known person of a binary gender, and I'd argue that it's even less acceptable now, thanks to the common adoption of they/them as a personal pronoun for known persons of nonbinary gender.
It'd be much less confusing if there was an entirely new pronoun for enbies. Or, better yet, if there were never any gendered pronouns to begin with. But this is the world we live in, and we all have to find the best way to navigate our own paths without kicking up dirt onto others'.
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying but there's a part I just can't get on board with at all. I don't know if it's just that I come from a really different society to your one or what is going on here, but this paragraph doesn't ring true to me at all:
it’s never been socially acceptable to use they/them for a known person of a binary gender, and I’d argue that it’s even less acceptable now, thanks to the common adoption of they/them as a personal pronoun for known persons of nonbinary gender.
It's totally socially acceptable where I am to call people "they", or at least it always has been.
Didn't mean to insinuate anything about your English btw; in my experience most native English speakers don't have much interest in historical useage or etymology. Formal English style guides have only come on board with singular "they" in the last 15-20 years despite everyone using it colloquially for decades and decades.
The US will strike a hell of a lot more than that if Russia uses a tactical nuke. It’d be the perfect opportunity to show the world that they can bomb you back into the stone age even without nukes.
Rofl such insane American cope... The US has been so cucked that Biden hasn't even authorized ATACMS in Russia let alone nukes anywhere at all. This is such insane American exceptionalism as to be completely and utterly removed from reality. Fucking pathetic.
Continuing the suppression of nuclear weapon use in wars is important for far, far more people than just Americans, or even just the west. A hostile use of nuclear weapons will trigger an extreme reaction from across the political and global spectrum.
Saudi Arabia is a useful ally to have in the region, a fellow enemy of Russian ally Iran, a good customer for the defense industry, and an alliance makes the US less reliant on Israel. That's a win-win.
Elements in the Saudi government may have helped orchestrate 9/11, but after 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia they drastically and often violently curtailed the influence of the Wahhabi establishment. The aristocracy clamped down on the power of the clergy. They also offered significant and valuable intelligence cooperation with the US
So if elements in the Saudi government did help orchestrate 9/11, it's easier to sweap it under the rug. There are more important issues to worry about.
Twenty years ago? Other decisions should have been made and not made.
Now? The world and the regime in Saudi Arabia has changed.
I agree with what you're saying, but also the reality of Saudi Arabia being a good ally is changing rapidly in the last couple years.
They aren't standing up to Russia. They aren't moderating Israel (potential normalization with the Saudis was likely the proximate cause of the October 6th attacks -- which of course entirely achieved the goal of ending that normalization). They're pledging to "extract every molecule" of fossil fuels to keep the world hooked even while their own internal development clearly shifts towards transition.
I'm not sure the relationship is paying off for the US. Maybe that's why this topic is being stirred back up -- to get a bit more leverage against them. The Saudis seem to be VERY concerned with the kayfabe of being a functional, modern state (in spite of the fact that they're a lunatic theocratic monarchy), so this kind of dirty laundry may be of influence to them if it really is undeniable.
I don't envy the folks in the diplomacy trades who have to consider and interpret all these factors and come to a real conclusion about them.
I'll bet a lot of the people in the trenches of politics also know. And pushing the green transition also helps reduce dependence on countries like SA. So it looks to be a win across the board.
If we can now reduce the plastic usage in society and switch that out to more sustainable products. Back to glass, tin cans, and paper.
Mark isn't going to be able to make the meeting today but Mark wanted to say Mark conferenced with Mark and Sheryl yesterday and Mark and Sheryl are onboard with the new policy and think it's a great idea. It's going to take a fair amount of collaboration from the infrastructure team but the infrastructure team (mainly Bob, Greg, and Kelly) are very motivated and the infrastructure team is about finished with the infrastructure teams annual security assessment. Cathy can't wait to get started.
News
Active