Millet's posts

Oop I'm one of those savages that takes the things I like, throws em all in a bowl and happily mixes and mashes away. I don't think I have anything I'm a purist about- but would def agree m&ms in cold things isn't as satisfying when left separate. Every family gathering my mother-in-law makes an ice cream cake and covers the mid section with M&Ms and it just makes it a pain in the ass to eat haha.

Bump

Agree with most of what you said @Sirnigelconrad: Won't really get to hear actual strong positions and debating until the race is narrowed down. At this point its a contest of who can be the most eloquent in the shortest amount of time.

Yesterday's debates were a damn mess. (won't get to update my post til next week as I have a busy asf weekend)

(Will post all my thoughts tomorrow! Gotta head to bed now that it is over)

I"m down for bug based snacks! Wish bug eating would go more mainstream, way better and sustainable resource.
Sadly don't live anywhere close.

@Bioshock: Alright, I confess I've never studied the history of they/them/their- didn't cross my mind to do so- but I did and you are right. Yes, we are taught in elementary school that they/them/their are plural nouns. I can't speak for every elementary school I suppose, but most at least in local areas follow the same curriculum. So for the state of NH in the US, I can safely say a majority of children are taught they/them/their are plural nouns. And with language channels like this one, state it as plural as well: children's video I had read anecdotes like this one in recent history and admittedly not much further.

Funny enough, looking now at my Elements of Style book given to me in high school- it refers to the singular they being used only in ambiguous contexts of the "subject" of a sentence. For example.


The thing with this book is, it isn't a book focused on grammar but about the ease of reading what is written. So in this case, a majority of people would not have any problem with the singular they. The subject of the sentence is robber. There is no gender specified here, leaving the husband to respond automatically with they in absence of he or she.

So you're completely correct, that since most people using they as a singular in absence of identifying as he or she does actual make total sense that is literally how it is used in singular cases. (also in cases of ambiguous numerics)

Which left me annoyed with "Then why does it bother me so much in a sentence when I know a person I'm referring to?" So from what I have dug up; the discomfort in using it lies, in the fact that when we see/know someone- we don't comprehend them as an ambiguous subject, and it is inherent to us to want to specify our language-which leaves the inclination of people to assume the pronouns of a person that they physically express the most. It isn't meant with malice or judgement at all in most cases, specifying our words is something we are conditioned and taught for the sake of clarity in writing and speaking. It almost feels insulting to refer to someone with the singular they as if to imply-they (lol there is the singular they again) aren't known enough to be given specification. That's obviously not actually the case, but that is what is pulling at the inherent hard wire.

So thank your for helping me reach this new conclusion, my mind is changed.

Out of courtesy I try to address people as they want...but I do struggle wrapping my head around
pronouns that go against inherent rules of our language. Such as they/them which is taught since our
youngest years at school- is a plural reference. It kinda complicates language and I don't forsee grammar rules
changing to help the masses get on board with this.

EDIT: after continuing this conversation and doing research, I actually have changed my mind on this. You can read about that on the second page of this thread.

Tagging @Saeyra: since I know she was interested.
I can't WAIT for tomorrow.

I think my favorite thing about this, is I had to read comics final panel twice before I got the joke.
I was like Why did she say "get it?" and then the second time revealed what I missed.

She got me. :viosunglasses:

Yup, for now he is my favorite but debate season could always change that for me!

What the heck statistic says that? I attempted several different wordings into google and google scholar and only get links discussing hormone therapy.

Link 1
Link2
Link 3

the LGBTQ community is more largely affected in contrast to heterosexuals, and due to societal prejudice still being
large- practices are still active and allowed that are dangerous and definitely don't affect anyone other than the LGBTQ community.
The weight of corporations- regardless of intent helps push their group think against the other group think 'gay is bad'.
There is still a majority population against gay rights, and while they thankfully aren't changing laws backwards- they are
still creating a hostile environment and spreading hateful ideals. Is that illegal? Not usually. But it is a dense populated mindset that affects the day to day lives of those who are gay. In general, as newer generations arise- they naturally continue to fade out older generation concepts. This can only continue to thrive by vocalizing the importance of this issue. If the entire LGBTQ went silent on the matters, the opposition absolutely would feel more confident in taking measures to ensure their homophobic ethics reign true and remain an accessible influence to the new generations. These statics would climb even higher once again.

By being vocal, available, and funded we create a safe environment to those still unsafe. By speaking out in volumes those who cannot currently get safe acceptance- they can attempt to validate to themselves they aren't wrong for existing, as the drones of people who are just like them are out there shouting to the world they exist, can't be erased, won't be erased and have no shame in the sexuality many were raised to believe will burn them in the firey pits of hell.

Societal influence is almost if not just as important as law. You'll never change everyone, but so long as people still parade against LGBTQ rights, still get funding for institutions to take harmful counter scientific measures to try and condition them into being straight and get belted for any sort of queer expression- it absolutely means the battle isn't over. Gay teens shouldn't need to make go fund mes to be saved from conversion camps before they feel the need to kill themselves.

Ha welcome to business politics.
An employer cannot forbid you from discussing your pay from anyone. But most states in the US are "employee at will" which basically means they can fire you for for numerous reasons so long as it isnt discrimatory. They can't fire you for sharing your pay but they can claim a different conveniently timed reason to cover their asses.

Ultimately, they don't want you or other employees to get upset if someone is making more than you for the same job. If there isn't a genuine reason for them to be making more (such as working far longer than you have. Or in general having more experience im the past making them inherently more valuable/less training.)

When I was 18 I was hired doing housekeeping. Given 10.50 an hour. I had minimal not very noteworthy prior experience. I was the ONLY white person on the housekeeping team. And every other worker had worked for the building 2 years - 5 years longer than me. Everyone else was black/Hispanic. When I found out from one of my coworkers he only makes $8.75 I told him I made $10.50

The housekeepers banded together. Went to HR. Threatened discrimatory wages and that week all of them were given $11 an hour.

I got called down and told I wasn't allowed to discuss my wage. I asked why. They said it wasnt appropriate. I asked where in the policy it said that and HR gave me a displeased look but didn't say more.

They needed me so I wasnt fired and the damage to them already been done. My first biggest example of white privilege to be honest.

(Sorry for typos. Stuck on mobile right now.)