@funkyanarchy, yup that pretty much sums up my opinion, but way clearer, and with an anecdote!does language changes peoples behaviour; yes. but behaviour also changes language. since language is a behaviour, i would just say 'behaviour affects behaviour'. anyway, onto language. heres hoping i can actually find the sources for these things im about to say with confidence. it has been noted that many cultures split up the colour spectrum in different ways. for instance im pretty sure russian has a word for light blue, in the same way we have a word of light red; 'pink'. but that is by no means the most radical example. for instance many languages do not share the distinction between 'green' and 'blue' that english has, sometimes referring to them as the 'same colour', using the same word for 'both'. im fairly sure i heard somewhere that a test was done by anthropologists where english speakers and a speakers of a different language -i forget which one- were given options of many different colours, and had to pick one out, and group of language speakers on the whole performed very differently. in one part of the colour spectrum -where the non-english speakers had more words categorising the same area of the colour spectrum- the non-english speakers were able to more reliably pick minute differences between colours. in another part of the colour spectrum -where the non-english language had fewer words compared to english- they struggled to differentiate between colours that english speakers would think of as 'completely different'. however as im sure you have noticed i cannot find the source for this, so it may be bullshit. the experiment, not the 'green-blue' distinction. im pretty sure about that one. im also not sure how i feel about anthropologists, but eh.
this does seem to make intuitive sense, at least to me. every moment you receive far more data than you can process, and part of growing up is learning to filter a lot of it out. one of the ways we do this is through language; indeed, i mostly think in language, and its pretty difficult to talk about the experiences that arent in our language, though i do have fun trying. the environment you live in is going to influence what is important to you; in the city generally dont need to pay close attention to noise, as doing so would probably drive you insane pretty quickly. fuck trucks man. but in a more 'wild' environment, you have to be far more conscious of sound for things like hunting, not being eaten etc. and so you will learn to listen, or die. the same is true for colours. depending on what you do most of the time, different colours are going to be differently important to you. a forager might need to distinguish between very slightly different shades of green, but someone who lives in a gray, drab, soul-crushing city isnt going to have as much experience with that. this, along with other many factors, might explain why languages developed different ways of categorising colours. since we are so immersed in language, we seem to think mostly in language, we communicate quite heavily using verbal language, and so it seems safe to assume that the categories that already exist in the language we use everyday are going to be reinforced.
here is a good episode of a mostly wanky podcast that might interest some of you
i like the conversation funky and skyline.
another thought i had about this subject....
the pronoun request only makes sense to me in terms of other people talking about you to third parties or when writing about you in third person.....not when talking to you....
people generally refer to someone by their name or "you" when speaking to each other....not she or he (or they)....so i guess you would need to ask someone to talk to other people about you in this way....which seems strange to me, since in most of the instances you wouldn't even hear it.
my answer doesnt sit right with me. despite my constant fiddling, i cannot seem to get it close to anything i am happy with. i dont want to delete it -out of some deep-seated, probably pathological archiving fetish- so imma break down the issue again here;
first off, i dont think that you present two arguments in the way i understand the word. an argument to me is a set of reasons for believing a certain thing or for acting a certain way; neither of your arguments are set out as such, so its quite hard to treat them as arguments.
the first one comes the closest to being an argument in this sense. bear in mind i will take some liberties with the wording;
@dot yeah, that was my original reaction before i began to tinker with things. i dont like general examples about whether 'types' of action fall under certain 'categories', but then i realised that my position was effectively just the second 'argument' that @dd mentioned, so i got a bit flustered
@dd ok with the arguments framed like that i dont think either of them lead to the conclusions that you set up, mostly because there are a lot of intermediate steps that you have missed out in setting up the argument. for an argument to work you have to set out the criteria for 'authoritarian' internally, otherwise its impossible to discuss. perhaps something like 'it is authoritarian to violate the autotomy of another person', with which i wouldnt even agree anyway, so there is that. like dot, without the context of a specific example, my answer is basically 'that depends on the context'.
another problem with the first one is you do not have autonomy over how other people address you, thats why they are other people.
the problem with the second one is again you do not have autonomy over how other people want to be addressed. however, the person insisting they 'must' be referred to in a specific way seems clearly incorrect, as if that were true, then the situation they are objecting to would never have arisen.
"for an argument to work you have to set out the criteria for 'authoritarian' internally"
or agree on it with whoever you are discussing, in which case that criteria would probably well answer the question.
I'm actually struggling to figure as to why it is necessary to be more specific... I'm not sure how much more specific I can get without talking about specific people, in which case if their reasons for changing their pronoun is the same it seems it would apply to other people using the same reason no?
"another problem with the first one is you do not have autonomy over how other people address you, thats why they are other people.
the problem with the second one is again you do not have autonomy over how other people want to be addressed. however, the person insisting they 'must' be referred to in a specific way seems clearly incorrect, as if that were true, then the situation they are objecting to would never have arisen."
ya I cant really see either one as negating or being superior to the other. they can be simultaneously true.
ya know actually, the biggest lesson I've learned from all of this is, the only place you really "have" to be somewhere specific, atleast daily for certain times as a requirement, is work for most people, making it the only place avoidance doesn't work. I cant think of anything else off the top of my head. so maybe as usual capitalism is the real problem
i don't know about "stupid", as that is way too subjective and broad a term for me to apply here, but i definitely agree with the last part of costanza's statement.
you (anybody, really) have absolutely have no obligation to play along. you may choose to, for any number of reasons.