Historically, “man” is absolutely neutral, meaning “human, person”. You then have wif for woman and wer for man and also wifman and werman. I think it would’ve been better to go back to those terms, already tried and true just fallen out of use after the Norman conquest, than to try to haphazardly and awkwardly declare the use of the term “mankind” sexist. Cudgels and shibboleths invented by the performative faction to have a way to deem themselves morally superior.
You said something intentionally vague that I suspect to be a dogwhistle. And now that I’ve asked what specifically you mean, you’re refusing to be specific.
It’s not my responsibility to educate you about elementary political terms. I would be willing to if you weren’t sitting there on your high and mighty steed, all morally superior, nurturing an appearance of being politically informed.
So either get down from there or, you know, google. Also google shibboleth while you’re at it. And read up on the psychology of in/outgroup dynamics.
Huh. I never considered this before, but, the use of a shibboleth actually feels kinda related in a “two sides of the same coin” way to how dog whistles are used, aren’t they?
Like, both are means of individuals using memetics to subtly transmit their IFF disposition toward their chosen faction in an ideological conflict.
Except that the connotation of a dog whistle is that it also paints a target, drawing attention from their faction to designate a given subject, be it an entity or concept or object, as IFF-Hostile.
Oh come to think of it, actually…!
IF used cynically and manipulatively, accusing someone of using a dog whistle could ITSELF hypothetically be a dog whistle, couldn’t it?
…
I feel the urge to clarify before I hit post that this is NOT an insinuation against you, though! I think you have a point, the person you’re calling out is legitimately being shady and evasive.
Especially after that shit they said in their reply about “it’s not my job to educate you” – that’s one of my biggest red flags for social media grifting:
When someone actually BELIEVES IN their rhetorical position, they’re usuallyexcited to share its details with other people, not dismissive and terse, because social media is an arena where the one person we’re responding to is FAR from the only person who can be moved by our voice. Passionately elucidating one’s points may not move one’s interlocutors, but it CAN sway multitudes of observers who can become motivated to speak up.
Feels kinda poetically similar to how our neurons arrive at the consensus of a decision in our brains and how bee colonies decide which flower patches to visit and such!
Historically, “man” is absolutely neutral, meaning “human, person”. You then have wif for woman and wer for man and also wifman and werman. I think it would’ve been better to go back to those terms, already tried and true just fallen out of use after the Norman conquest, than to try to haphazardly and awkwardly declare the use of the term “mankind” sexist. Cudgels and shibboleths invented by the performative faction to have a way to deem themselves morally superior.
Women and enbies??
If I had meant that then I would have said that. But I don’t, so I didn’t.
Also I resent the implication. Don’t pretend you don’t know what performativity means in this context.
You said something intentionally vague that I suspect to be a dogwhistle. And now that I’ve asked what specifically you mean, you’re refusing to be specific.
It’s not my responsibility to educate you about elementary political terms. I would be willing to if you weren’t sitting there on your high and mighty steed, all morally superior, nurturing an appearance of being politically informed.
So either get down from there or, you know, google. Also google shibboleth while you’re at it. And read up on the psychology of in/outgroup dynamics.
Huh. I never considered this before, but, the use of a shibboleth actually feels kinda related in a “two sides of the same coin” way to how dog whistles are used, aren’t they?
Like, both are means of individuals using memetics to subtly transmit their IFF disposition toward their chosen faction in an ideological conflict.
Except that the connotation of a dog whistle is that it also paints a target, drawing attention from their faction to designate a given subject, be it an entity or concept or object, as IFF-Hostile.
Oh come to think of it, actually…! IF used cynically and manipulatively, accusing someone of using a dog whistle could ITSELF hypothetically be a dog whistle, couldn’t it?
…
I feel the urge to clarify before I hit post that this is NOT an insinuation against you, though! I think you have a point, the person you’re calling out is legitimately being shady and evasive.
Especially after that shit they said in their reply about “it’s not my job to educate you” – that’s one of my biggest red flags for social media grifting:
When someone actually BELIEVES IN their rhetorical position, they’re usually excited to share its details with other people, not dismissive and terse, because social media is an arena where the one person we’re responding to is FAR from the only person who can be moved by our voice. Passionately elucidating one’s points may not move one’s interlocutors, but it CAN sway multitudes of observers who can become motivated to speak up.
Feels kinda poetically similar to how our neurons arrive at the consensus of a decision in our brains and how bee colonies decide which flower patches to visit and such!