This might be a better link - it has more context and seems to be the main source that the linked article has used. I've not played Starfield, so I'm guessing at some of the context, but this...
This might be a better link - it has more context and seems to be the main source that the linked article has used.
I've not played Starfield, so I'm guessing at some of the context, but this seems to be the basic TL;DR:
In Starfield as part of the character creation process, you also choose the character's pronouns.
A YouTuber criticised this as being "California crap", and (possibly relatedly) this mod sprung up that removes the pronoun selection step.
This seems to have become a bit of a culture wars item, and as a result NexusMods have banned it (with the disclaimer that this has nothing to do with politics).
I get the impression that the mod works by just setting the pronouns to they/them automatically without the user having to see the selection screen, which seems kind of ironic to me, given the audience that it's catering to.
I'm not against the NexusMods decision, but their explanation is strange -- saying they're doing it to defend "diversity and inclusion" but also that "It's not a ‘political statement’ or an...
I'm not against the NexusMods decision, but their explanation is strange -- saying they're doing it to defend "diversity and inclusion" but also that "It's not a ‘political statement’ or an ‘alignment to one side or the other in the culture war," as if the value of diversity and inclusion itself isn't a core part of that culture war. You'd think they'd be using that logic to defend not removing the mod on free speech, we're-a-neutral-platform grounds. It's like a bizarro version of the modder protesting the pronoun selection by... giving everybody gender-neutral pronouns.
The goal seems to be inclusive by not alienating people based on their opinions. This leads to a tension between "inclusive" and "exclusive" opinions and a common corporate response is to try to...
The goal seems to be inclusive by not alienating people based on their opinions.
This leads to a tension between "inclusive" and "exclusive" opinions and a common corporate response is to try to prevent ruffling anybody's feathers, often to the detriment of one side or another anyway.
They're trying not to play the culture war game but, like many entities, fail to see that they're actually the field on which it is fought, and really have no say about their participation.
Didn't get as much press probably. At least I didn't here about it and I was modding that game fairly frequently. I could have just been unobservant though.
Didn't get as much press probably. At least I didn't here about it and I was modding that game fairly frequently. I could have just been unobservant though.
As everyone knows, political statements are bad, and aligning to sides is bad. So if you always make a statement about how your actions weren't political whenever you do anything, you save...
As everyone knows, political statements are bad, and aligning to sides is bad. So if you always make a statement about how your actions weren't political whenever you do anything, you save yourself from the humiliation of accidentally doing a politics...
I mean, from their side I get it - it really isn't that "political" for them, it's just practical - this mod is going to cause more drama than it's worth to host it, so nip in the bud quickly. It's just ironic that their practical decision is ultimately itself one of politics.
You can literally just select whatever you want and not even think about it for one second total in your entire life. To make a mod specifically to wage culture war because of something so trivial...
You can literally just select whatever you want and not even think about it for one second total in your entire life. To make a mod specifically to wage culture war because of something so trivial is unhinged.
Should have just chosen a gender neutral pronoun from a language that doesn't have gender pronouns and say it's just immersive future language mixing, like in The Expanse.
Should have just chosen a gender neutral pronoun from a language that doesn't have gender pronouns and say it's just immersive future language mixing, like in The Expanse.
This isn't the first time they've done this sort of thing. Mods have been removed for deleting or replacing certain flags. These sorts of mods usually cause a stir that nexus isn't interested in...
This isn't the first time they've done this sort of thing. Mods have been removed for deleting or replacing certain flags.
These sorts of mods usually cause a stir that nexus isn't interested in hosting on their platform. So I think this is more as a precaution than anything else.
Ah. Okay. I get that. Basically with context about how the mod came about from another commenter, this is just them being aggressively non-drama inclined.
Ah. Okay. I get that. Basically with context about how the mod came about from another commenter, this is just them being aggressively non-drama inclined.
It's more diverse to be able to choose any pronoun you want than to not be able to do that. This mod effectively is made to homogenize, not widen the available identity options.
It's more diverse to be able to choose any pronoun you want than to not be able to do that. This mod effectively is made to homogenize, not widen the available identity options.
Personally I'd say giving people less choice is alway less diverse than anything else. In this circumstance though, NexusMods usually bans controversial mods because they want to keep their site...
Personally I'd say giving people less choice is alway less diverse than anything else. In this circumstance though, NexusMods usually bans controversial mods because they want to keep their site drama-free.
It's really not incorrect grammar. Singular they has been in usage for longer than a singular "you." (You can still see traces of its plural past in the way it's conjugated; he/she is, but...
It's really not incorrect grammar. Singular they has been in usage for longer than a singular "you." (You can still see traces of its plural past in the way it's conjugated; he/she is, but you/they are.) I'm not sure why so many people make a fuss about it now. When I'm writing or speaking about someone and don't know their gender, it's perfectly natural to refer to them as "they." It's certainly better than referring to them as "he" and a lot more wieldy than breaking out a "he/she".
A lot of arbitrary English grammar rules, particularly ones that people don't use in speech naturally but are encouraged to use in writing, were artifically made up at various points relatively...
A lot of arbitrary English grammar rules, particularly ones that people don't use in speech naturally but are encouraged to use in writing, were artifically made up at various points relatively recently (usually 19th and early 20th century) to make English grammar conform more closely to the rules of Latin grammar. This includes rules like "don't split infinitives" and "don't end sentences with prepositions" and using "he" instead of singular "they". A lot of people were force-fed rules like these in their English classes and will unquestioningly defend them since they believe whatever they were taught is the "correct" grammar.
It does introduce some specific confusion around whether you're talking about a singular they or multiple theys though. For instance, imagine Mary prefers she/her. So we say "Mary is having lunch...
It does introduce some specific confusion around whether you're talking about a singular they or multiple theys though. For instance, imagine Mary prefers she/her. So we say "Mary is having lunch with Jane. She will meet us afterwards." But if Mary prefers they/them it becomes "Mary is having lunch with Jane. They will meet us afterwards."
Now it's not clear whether Jane is coming or not without some clarification. And that is, I think, pretty new and not desirable in the language. That said, the only way out it through at this point. So once people stop having dumb rear-guard fights about whether "they" as a default pronoun for individual people is appropriate they can move on to having dumb prescriptivist fights about which form of plural they prefer.
I vote for Th'yall. As in "Mary is having lunch with Jane and th'yall will meet us after."
Yeah I think "They all" might end up becoming a thing as a result. It doesn't sound right to my ears but I'm sure the "great vowel shift" sounded weird to English speakers at the time too.
Yeah I think "They all" might end up becoming a thing as a result. It doesn't sound right to my ears but I'm sure the "great vowel shift" sounded weird to English speakers at the time too.
I feel like any discussion about English grammar always has another hole in the dam to plug. For your example, one could just refer to Mary twice by name to exclude Jane. And is "th'yall" singular...
I feel like any discussion about English grammar always has another hole in the dam to plug.
For your example, one could just refer to Mary twice by name to exclude Jane.
And is "th'yall" singular or plural? It feels like "they y'all," the former being ambiguous and the latter being used to refer to multiple persons.
Singular "they" has been valid English grammar since before modern English -- Chaucer uses it. Its use for a specific person is novel, but use of that form for an unspecified person or a person of...
Singular "they" has been valid English grammar since before modern English -- Chaucer uses it. Its use for a specific person is novel, but use of that form for an unspecified person or a person of unknown gender (the scenario the article you linked principally concerns) has been a mainstay of English grammar for hundreds of years. The vast majority of native English speakers, including those with strong opinions on how singular they shouldn't be used like Stallman, use singular they in this context in speech without even noticing they're doing it. I bet Stallman himself has done this in public at some point, though I can't be arsed to go through his public appearances to search for an example.
Stallman is a software developer with zero background in linguistics. His opinions on singular they in these contexts are directly contradicted by the bulk of extant English language data AND would not be agreed with by any credible linguist. Use of singular they for a specific person (as in the Skyrim mod or as in my preferred pronouns as a nonbinary person) is more controversial, but it is absolutely well-understood and agreed upon among linguists that singular they for someone with unknown or unspecified gender is a perfectly ordinary part of English grammar (and is, in fact, older than singular "you", which he does not suggest changing).
It's interesting that you've linked to a software activist's personal thoughts on their blog as a source... do you think they have some sort of authority that puts their opinion above everyone...
It's interesting that you've linked to a software activist's personal thoughts on their blog as a source... do you think they have some sort of authority that puts their opinion above everyone elses?
And - be honest - did you even notice the they/them pronoun in the above paragraph? Was it "jarring" or "confusing" like Stallman said?
The grandparent comment linked to an explanation that illustrates their own opinion. Moreover, it also contains examples that illustrate the types of scenarios in which the author feels the use of...
do you think they have some sort of authority that puts their opinion above everyone elses?
The grandparent comment linked to an explanation that illustrates their own opinion. Moreover, it also contains examples that illustrate the types of scenarios in which the author feels the use of the pronoun is jarring and confusing, and those scenarios differ from your own example. I understand you may not share the grandparent commenter's opinion, which is perfectly valid, but please try to argue in good faith; this isn't reddit.
I found their questions to be in good faith and seems perfectly valid to me. Just because you may not agree with their reasons for asking their questions it does not mean their comment requires...
I found their questions to be in good faith and seems perfectly valid to me. Just because you may not agree with their reasons for asking their questions it does not mean their comment requires policing. Nothing said was inflammatory or appears to be trolling.
The response implicitly shames the author of the comment for linking to Stallman's opinion by being phrased in such a way that it implies that such a citation must mean Stallman's opinion is...
The response implicitly shames the author of the comment for linking to Stallman's opinion by being phrased in such a way that it implies that such a citation must mean Stallman's opinion is "above everyone elses" (sic). I apologize if the response in question was just poorly worded, but I'm commenting on its letter. Responses worded like that have a chilling effect and I consider them to be the greatest vulnerability of the Tildes system in the long run.
But Stallman is not an authoritative voice on the subject of English grammar. He's a bad source, and an even worse sole source, to conclude "it's incorrect grammar". After all, nothing in that...
But Stallman is not an authoritative voice on the subject of English grammar. He's a bad source, and an even worse sole source, to conclude "it's incorrect grammar". After all, nothing in that article actually covers and research or analysis of English grammar, it's entirely baseless assumptions and preconceived notions. If that article alone was submitted in a linguistics course, it would receive a failing grade. Why and how is it considered authoritative?
Stallman's article is about as good of a source as any random, unverified reddit comment. The only authority it has is because it comes from a celebrity.
I'd say the far more "chilling" thing that's happened in recent years is the lack of good information integrity and giving credence to people because they are popular or famous, and not because they are experts. This already came to a head during the pandemic when suddenly medical doctors found themselves constantly frustrated heading off bad information from non-medical scientists like politicians and influencers.
A bad source should be called out as a bad source now, more than ever before, as we live in the age of dis- and misinformation. Someone touting this article as proof that "they" is bad English grammar is about as correct as someone touting that human psychology really does mirror those of lobsters because a certain someone said so.
There may be a bit of "shaming" coming from the second half of that comment but the first half is a good question: why is a guy who is famous for one very, very specific field putting out a rant based purely on his own emotions being used as an authoritative source in a completely unrelated field that has a rich and long academic history?
Come on now. The link was presented as the source for a claim. It's perfectly reasonable to question the author's authority when they are bing cited as an authority. If we're going to start tone...
Come on now. The link was presented as the source for a claim. It's perfectly reasonable to question the author's authority when they are bing cited as an authority.
If we're going to start tone policing, are you trying to "shame" someone by calling attention to their grammatical errors with a "sic"???
The way the link was presented did seem closer how one would cite a source to give weight to one’s own argument when phrased briefly as “[assertion] (see here)” rather than just sharing an...
The way the link was presented did seem closer how one would cite a source to give weight to one’s own argument when phrased briefly as “[assertion] (see here)” rather than just sharing an existing piece in agreement to avoid repeating the same points, e.g “[assertion] (I agree with X’s arguments here)”.
Plus, Stallman specifically is a polarizing individual with some controversial opinions spoken/written authoritatively both in his domain of expertise and beyond, and bringing him into any conversation tends to put people more on edge.
Stallman is incorrect. You should cite actual experts in this, instead of some tech guy. Edit: Since I wrote this to a reply that was then deleted, I will post some of it anyway: Petty much all...
Stallman is incorrect. You should cite actual experts in this, instead of some tech guy.
Edit: Since I wrote this to a reply that was then deleted, I will post some of it anyway:
I recently tried the Street Fighter 6 demo and also Baldurs Gate 3, and noticed that both have pronoun selection in them. It was kind of fun in Street Fighter, since the character creation was...
I recently tried the Street Fighter 6 demo and also Baldurs Gate 3, and noticed that both have pronoun selection in them. It was kind of fun in Street Fighter, since the character creation was advanced enough for me to create a dude character, add female pronouns, and make it look like a girl. She honestly looked kinda hot. With Baldurs Gate, it felt a bit jarring to have modern stuff like they/them pronouns in a D&D fantasy setting.
I can somewhat follow why some people feel slightly annoyed by the pronoun option. It sorta takes me out of the fantasy, since it isn't something I'm accostumed to see in a video game. Still, it is strange to get so uptight about it that you go out of your way to add a mod to avoid it, rather than just, you know, ignore it.
People love to get mad about things. It convinces themselves that they have character. BG3 has a very "woke" character creator in the sense that you can kinda just customize everything completely...
People love to get mad about things. It convinces themselves that they have character. BG3 has a very "woke" character creator in the sense that you can kinda just customize everything completely independently of each other. Voice, genitals, gender identity are separate fields and have no relation to each other. I don't know of an openly trans NPC in the game, so it seems very much like a player-focused thing, but like you, I don't care. I'm happy the folks who want it got it, and I go with the defaults. That's what normal people do.
I recently watched a video by videogamedunkey reviewing Armored Core 6 and there was a clip in it of a game reviewer who gut extremely upset that the game offers a pronoun choice. Like I kid you not, looking into the camera and screaming PRRRRRONOOOOOOOOUNSSSSSSSSSSSS!
How someone can think of that concept, execute that concept, watch that concept back to make sure no mistakes were made during recording, upload it and still think it's a good idea is now entirely beyond me. I was once dangerously close to the movement though (used to be a gamergater back in ~2015) until I, to put it short, got a life. People like that just have no other hobbies. It's the juxtaposition of the Twitter leftists who have nothing going on in their life so they continously get mad about stuff that actually doesn't matter.
I think the idea that a fantasy setting with multiple sapient species some of whom are explicitly inherently magical would only have two binary genders based on Christianized Western...
I think the idea that a fantasy setting with multiple sapient species some of whom are explicitly inherently magical would only have two binary genders based on Christianized Western European/North American culture is far more jarring. It's sort of our own cultural supremacy making us blind to it I think.
Hell even in Eberron, my Kalashtar is they/them because they're plural. Both the person and their quorri follow the female line of their family but there are two entities present. I'm certainly biased towards such things but I love speculative fiction exploring gender as much as it explores magic and/or tech and other societal aspects.
Also many trans and non-binary folks explore gender through roleplaying games. When that experience is your paradigm (most of my games have had 1 cis straight person, maybe), it's weirder not to have non-binary pronouns present.
I'm not really understanding their logic in this, they say it's not political, then they say they choose to defend diversity? That's kind of political isn't it?
I'm not really understanding their logic in this, they say it's not political, then they say they choose to defend diversity? That's kind of political isn't it?
it's a defense mechanism from the crazies on all sides. They don't want to get involved in the discussion, they don't want the attention and endless harassment that both sides bring on topics like...
it's a defense mechanism from the crazies on all sides.
They don't want to get involved in the discussion, they don't want the attention and endless harassment that both sides bring on topics like this. They took down the mod, gave a platitude about how diversity is good, and said they didn't want this to be political because they don't want crazies from the right framing their site as "woke" nor do they want crazies from the left to take this as permission to comb through every mod on the site and raise a storm of complaints about why this one or that one is still there.
When someone looks at you and says "I have no interest in the political side of this" and then you throw back the "well everything is politics" or "by doing <any action at all> you're picking a side" then YATA. If people say things like that it's basically them saying please just change the topic and leave me alone.
Could someone please enlighten me here, as I haven't played Starfield or Baldur's Gate 3 or other games with a pronoun selector. How often does that even show up in the game? I would think that if...
Could someone please enlighten me here, as I haven't played Starfield or Baldur's Gate 3 or other games with a pronoun selector.
How often does that even show up in the game? I would think that if you're playing a character, and you're interacting with NPCs, they'll be speaking to you, not about you, and therefore only be using the second-person pronoun that nobody has issues with.
I find that it is rare to refer to anyone in the third person even in real life. So in some circumstances this is an irrelevant dispute. However, sometimes in games enemies will refer to you in...
I find that it is rare to refer to anyone in the third person even in real life. So in some circumstances this is an irrelevant dispute.
However, sometimes in games enemies will refer to you in the third person, such as in phrases like "he just won't die!", or "she's in trouble now!" that are uttered from one NPC to another.
I see, thanks for the example. It still seems like it would be immersion breaking if you're wandering through a new area in a digital world that your character has never before entered, and then...
I see, thanks for the example. It still seems like it would be immersion breaking if you're wandering through a new area in a digital world that your character has never before entered, and then hear the NPCs say "Get xim!"
That's still a very disingenuous example because 1) people who are using neopronouns aren't the ones who are offended, and 2) the offending snowflake that gets mad about pronoun selectors wouldn't...
That's still a very disingenuous example because 1) people who are using neopronouns aren't the ones who are offended, and 2) the offending snowflake that gets mad about pronoun selectors wouldn't select a pronoun of xim anyways.
Touché; I didn't mean it in terms of being offended, I was trying to get at the awkwardness of having a game character using a pronoun that they probably wouldn't normally use, or have a reason to...
Touché; I didn't mean it in terms of being offended, I was trying to get at the awkwardness of having a game character using a pronoun that they probably wouldn't normally use, or have a reason to use, when referring to the player character whom they've never before seen.
The definition I found for "disingenuous" is as follows: Do you truly believe @just_another_guy was being insincere and dishonest, essentially acting in bad faith, or is there another meaning for...
disingenuous
The definition I found for "disingenuous" is as follows:
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
related words: dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous
Do you truly believe @just_another_guy was being insincere and dishonest, essentially acting in bad faith, or is there another meaning for this word that I am unaware of? Or maybe you're using it for hyperbole?
I'm probably just using it wrong. I don't think that the example was used in bad faith, but I think it unintentionally distracts from the greater topic at hand.
I'm probably just using it wrong. I don't think that the example was used in bad faith, but I think it unintentionally distracts from the greater topic at hand.
I understand. I find that the word "disingenuous" is often used like you just did, which can be inadvertently accusatorial. But that's okay, words change meaning and it looks like "disingenuous"...
I understand. I find that the word "disingenuous" is often used like you just did, which can be inadvertently accusatorial.
But that's okay, words change meaning and it looks like "disingenuous" is in a shift to shed its "bad faith" component.
In the meantime, some misunderstandings are bound to happen. Personally, I may just avoid the word altogether for the time being.
This might be a better link - it has more context and seems to be the main source that the linked article has used.
I've not played Starfield, so I'm guessing at some of the context, but this seems to be the basic TL;DR:
I get the impression that the mod works by just setting the pronouns to they/them automatically without the user having to see the selection screen, which seems kind of ironic to me, given the audience that it's catering to.
I'm not against the NexusMods decision, but their explanation is strange -- saying they're doing it to defend "diversity and inclusion" but also that "It's not a ‘political statement’ or an ‘alignment to one side or the other in the culture war," as if the value of diversity and inclusion itself isn't a core part of that culture war. You'd think they'd be using that logic to defend not removing the mod on free speech, we're-a-neutral-platform grounds. It's like a bizarro version of the modder protesting the pronoun selection by... giving everybody gender-neutral pronouns.
The goal seems to be inclusive by not alienating people based on their opinions.
This leads to a tension between "inclusive" and "exclusive" opinions and a common corporate response is to try to prevent ruffling anybody's feathers, often to the detriment of one side or another anyway.
They're trying not to play the culture war game but, like many entities, fail to see that they're actually the field on which it is fought, and really have no say about their participation.
I mean they say that, but they still left that BG3 mod up that changes will from black to white for some reason.
Didn't get as much press probably. At least I didn't here about it and I was modding that game fairly frequently. I could have just been unobservant though.
As everyone knows, political statements are bad, and aligning to sides is bad. So if you always make a statement about how your actions weren't political whenever you do anything, you save yourself from the humiliation of accidentally doing a politics...
I mean, from their side I get it - it really isn't that "political" for them, it's just practical - this mod is going to cause more drama than it's worth to host it, so nip in the bud quickly. It's just ironic that their practical decision is ultimately itself one of politics.
You can literally just select whatever you want and not even think about it for one second total in your entire life. To make a mod specifically to wage culture war because of something so trivial is unhinged.
I have not found the exact description of the mod but judging by reddit comments it seemed it simply made everyone's pronouns they/them.
Should have just chosen a gender neutral pronoun from a language that doesn't have gender pronouns and say it's just immersive future language mixing, like in The Expanse.
Wait. What's wrong with doing that? Why is that less diverse? Isn't that more diverse because anyone can be anything now.
This isn't the first time they've done this sort of thing. Mods have been removed for deleting or replacing certain flags.
These sorts of mods usually cause a stir that nexus isn't interested in hosting on their platform. So I think this is more as a precaution than anything else.
Ah. Okay. I get that. Basically with context about how the mod came about from another commenter, this is just them being aggressively non-drama inclined.
It's more diverse to be able to choose any pronoun you want than to not be able to do that. This mod effectively is made to homogenize, not widen the available identity options.
Personally I'd say giving people less choice is alway less diverse than anything else. In this circumstance though, NexusMods usually bans controversial mods because they want to keep their site drama-free.
It's incorrect grammar (see here) but it's definitely not grounds for the mod's removal.
It's really not incorrect grammar. Singular they has been in usage for longer than a singular "you." (You can still see traces of its plural past in the way it's conjugated; he/she is, but you/they are.) I'm not sure why so many people make a fuss about it now. When I'm writing or speaking about someone and don't know their gender, it's perfectly natural to refer to them as "they." It's certainly better than referring to them as "he" and a lot more wieldy than breaking out a "he/she".
A lot of arbitrary English grammar rules, particularly ones that people don't use in speech naturally but are encouraged to use in writing, were artifically made up at various points relatively recently (usually 19th and early 20th century) to make English grammar conform more closely to the rules of Latin grammar. This includes rules like "don't split infinitives" and "don't end sentences with prepositions" and using "he" instead of singular "they". A lot of people were force-fed rules like these in their English classes and will unquestioningly defend them since they believe whatever they were taught is the "correct" grammar.
It does introduce some specific confusion around whether you're talking about a singular they or multiple theys though. For instance, imagine Mary prefers she/her. So we say "Mary is having lunch with Jane. She will meet us afterwards." But if Mary prefers they/them it becomes "Mary is having lunch with Jane. They will meet us afterwards."
Now it's not clear whether Jane is coming or not without some clarification. And that is, I think, pretty new and not desirable in the language. That said, the only way out it through at this point. So once people stop having dumb rear-guard fights about whether "they" as a default pronoun for individual people is appropriate they can move on to having dumb prescriptivist fights about which form of plural they prefer.
I vote for Th'yall. As in "Mary is having lunch with Jane and th'yall will meet us after."
To be fair, you get the same confusion with singular you and multiple yous, too.
Yeah I think "They all" might end up becoming a thing as a result. It doesn't sound right to my ears but I'm sure the "great vowel shift" sounded weird to English speakers at the time too.
I feel like any discussion about English grammar always has another hole in the dam to plug.
For your example, one could just refer to Mary twice by name to exclude Jane.
And is "th'yall" singular or plural? It feels like "they y'all," the former being ambiguous and the latter being used to refer to multiple persons.
The idea was that it'll be the plural form of "they."
Singular "they" has been valid English grammar since before modern English -- Chaucer uses it. Its use for a specific person is novel, but use of that form for an unspecified person or a person of unknown gender (the scenario the article you linked principally concerns) has been a mainstay of English grammar for hundreds of years. The vast majority of native English speakers, including those with strong opinions on how singular they shouldn't be used like Stallman, use singular they in this context in speech without even noticing they're doing it. I bet Stallman himself has done this in public at some point, though I can't be arsed to go through his public appearances to search for an example.
Stallman is a software developer with zero background in linguistics. His opinions on singular they in these contexts are directly contradicted by the bulk of extant English language data AND would not be agreed with by any credible linguist. Use of singular they for a specific person (as in the Skyrim mod or as in my preferred pronouns as a nonbinary person) is more controversial, but it is absolutely well-understood and agreed upon among linguists that singular they for someone with unknown or unspecified gender is a perfectly ordinary part of English grammar (and is, in fact, older than singular "you", which he does not suggest changing).
It's interesting that you've linked to a software activist's personal thoughts on their blog as a source... do you think they have some sort of authority that puts their opinion above everyone elses?
And - be honest - did you even notice the they/them pronoun in the above paragraph? Was it "jarring" or "confusing" like Stallman said?
The grandparent comment linked to an explanation that illustrates their own opinion. Moreover, it also contains examples that illustrate the types of scenarios in which the author feels the use of the pronoun is jarring and confusing, and those scenarios differ from your own example. I understand you may not share the grandparent commenter's opinion, which is perfectly valid, but please try to argue in good faith; this isn't reddit.
I found their questions to be in good faith and seems perfectly valid to me. Just because you may not agree with their reasons for asking their questions it does not mean their comment requires policing. Nothing said was inflammatory or appears to be trolling.
The response implicitly shames the author of the comment for linking to Stallman's opinion by being phrased in such a way that it implies that such a citation must mean Stallman's opinion is "above everyone elses" (sic). I apologize if the response in question was just poorly worded, but I'm commenting on its letter. Responses worded like that have a chilling effect and I consider them to be the greatest vulnerability of the Tildes system in the long run.
But Stallman is not an authoritative voice on the subject of English grammar. He's a bad source, and an even worse sole source, to conclude "it's incorrect grammar". After all, nothing in that article actually covers and research or analysis of English grammar, it's entirely baseless assumptions and preconceived notions. If that article alone was submitted in a linguistics course, it would receive a failing grade. Why and how is it considered authoritative?
Stallman's article is about as good of a source as any random, unverified reddit comment. The only authority it has is because it comes from a celebrity.
I'd say the far more "chilling" thing that's happened in recent years is the lack of good information integrity and giving credence to people because they are popular or famous, and not because they are experts. This already came to a head during the pandemic when suddenly medical doctors found themselves constantly frustrated heading off bad information from non-medical scientists like politicians and influencers.
A bad source should be called out as a bad source now, more than ever before, as we live in the age of dis- and misinformation. Someone touting this article as proof that "they" is bad English grammar is about as correct as someone touting that human psychology really does mirror those of lobsters because a certain someone said so.
There may be a bit of "shaming" coming from the second half of that comment but the first half is a good question: why is a guy who is famous for one very, very specific field putting out a rant based purely on his own emotions being used as an authoritative source in a completely unrelated field that has a rich and long academic history?
Come on now. The link was presented as the source for a claim. It's perfectly reasonable to question the author's authority when they are bing cited as an authority.
If we're going to start tone policing, are you trying to "shame" someone by calling attention to their grammatical errors with a "sic"???
The way the link was presented did seem closer how one would cite a source to give weight to one’s own argument when phrased briefly as “[assertion] (see here)” rather than just sharing an existing piece in agreement to avoid repeating the same points, e.g “[assertion] (I agree with X’s arguments here)”.
Plus, Stallman specifically is a polarizing individual with some controversial opinions spoken/written authoritatively both in his domain of expertise and beyond, and bringing him into any conversation tends to put people more on edge.
Stallman is incorrect. You should cite actual experts in this, instead of some tech guy.
Edit: Since I wrote this to a reply that was then deleted, I will post some of it anyway:
Petty much all other dictionaries say the same: dictionary.com, APA style guide, Oxford dictionary, Collins dictionary, Canadian justice system (since I'm Canadian)
I recently tried the Street Fighter 6 demo and also Baldurs Gate 3, and noticed that both have pronoun selection in them. It was kind of fun in Street Fighter, since the character creation was advanced enough for me to create a dude character, add female pronouns, and make it look like a girl. She honestly looked kinda hot. With Baldurs Gate, it felt a bit jarring to have modern stuff like they/them pronouns in a D&D fantasy setting.
I can somewhat follow why some people feel slightly annoyed by the pronoun option. It sorta takes me out of the fantasy, since it isn't something I'm accostumed to see in a video game. Still, it is strange to get so uptight about it that you go out of your way to add a mod to avoid it, rather than just, you know, ignore it.
People love to get mad about things. It convinces themselves that they have character. BG3 has a very "woke" character creator in the sense that you can kinda just customize everything completely independently of each other. Voice, genitals, gender identity are separate fields and have no relation to each other. I don't know of an openly trans NPC in the game, so it seems very much like a player-focused thing, but like you, I don't care. I'm happy the folks who want it got it, and I go with the defaults. That's what normal people do.
I recently watched a video by videogamedunkey reviewing Armored Core 6 and there was a clip in it of a game reviewer who gut extremely upset that the game offers a pronoun choice. Like I kid you not, looking into the camera and screaming PRRRRRONOOOOOOOOUNSSSSSSSSSSSS!
How someone can think of that concept, execute that concept, watch that concept back to make sure no mistakes were made during recording, upload it and still think it's a good idea is now entirely beyond me. I was once dangerously close to the movement though (used to be a gamergater back in ~2015) until I, to put it short, got a life. People like that just have no other hobbies. It's the juxtaposition of the Twitter leftists who have nothing going on in their life so they continously get mad about stuff that actually doesn't matter.
I think the idea that a fantasy setting with multiple sapient species some of whom are explicitly inherently magical would only have two binary genders based on Christianized Western European/North American culture is far more jarring. It's sort of our own cultural supremacy making us blind to it I think.
Hell even in Eberron, my Kalashtar is they/them because they're plural. Both the person and their quorri follow the female line of their family but there are two entities present. I'm certainly biased towards such things but I love speculative fiction exploring gender as much as it explores magic and/or tech and other societal aspects.
Also many trans and non-binary folks explore gender through roleplaying games. When that experience is your paradigm (most of my games have had 1 cis straight person, maybe), it's weirder not to have non-binary pronouns present.
I'm not really understanding their logic in this, they say it's not political, then they say they choose to defend diversity? That's kind of political isn't it?
it's a defense mechanism from the crazies on all sides.
They don't want to get involved in the discussion, they don't want the attention and endless harassment that both sides bring on topics like this. They took down the mod, gave a platitude about how diversity is good, and said they didn't want this to be political because they don't want crazies from the right framing their site as "woke" nor do they want crazies from the left to take this as permission to comb through every mod on the site and raise a storm of complaints about why this one or that one is still there.
When someone looks at you and says "I have no interest in the political side of this" and then you throw back the "well everything is politics" or "by doing <any action at all> you're picking a side" then YATA. If people say things like that it's basically them saying please just change the topic and leave me alone.
Could someone please enlighten me here, as I haven't played Starfield or Baldur's Gate 3 or other games with a pronoun selector.
How often does that even show up in the game? I would think that if you're playing a character, and you're interacting with NPCs, they'll be speaking to you, not about you, and therefore only be using the second-person pronoun that nobody has issues with.
I find that it is rare to refer to anyone in the third person even in real life. So in some circumstances this is an irrelevant dispute.
However, sometimes in games enemies will refer to you in the third person, such as in phrases like "he just won't die!", or "she's in trouble now!" that are uttered from one NPC to another.
I see, thanks for the example. It still seems like it would be immersion breaking if you're wandering through a new area in a digital world that your character has never before entered, and then hear the NPCs say "Get xim!"
That's still a very disingenuous example because 1) people who are using neopronouns aren't the ones who are offended, and 2) the offending snowflake that gets mad about pronoun selectors wouldn't select a pronoun of xim anyways.
Touché; I didn't mean it in terms of being offended, I was trying to get at the awkwardness of having a game character using a pronoun that they probably wouldn't normally use, or have a reason to use, when referring to the player character whom they've never before seen.
The definition I found for "disingenuous" is as follows:
Do you truly believe @just_another_guy was being insincere and dishonest, essentially acting in bad faith, or is there another meaning for this word that I am unaware of? Or maybe you're using it for hyperbole?
I'm probably just using it wrong. I don't think that the example was used in bad faith, but I think it unintentionally distracts from the greater topic at hand.
I understand. I find that the word "disingenuous" is often used like you just did, which can be inadvertently accusatorial.
But that's okay, words change meaning and it looks like "disingenuous" is in a shift to shed its "bad faith" component.
In the meantime, some misunderstandings are bound to happen. Personally, I may just avoid the word altogether for the time being.