[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proofreading of a part of a document about "gender neutrality"

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:22:18PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> > Heh heh. Heh heh. Heh heh. He said "manus". Heh heh.
> Don't laugh. If you have something to say, well, say
> it. Laughing is not an argument.

What, have you never watched "Beavis and Butthead"? That one sums up
the point *really* well.

> > Come on, the only possible conclusion of this line
> > of reasoning is
> > that communication between two people is impossible.
> > Absolutely
> > anything you say can be misinterpreted in this way.
> > The only possible
> > conclusion is that this is a property of the reader,
> > not the writer.
> You're optimistic, aren't you?
> You remind me of the discussions we had in school when
> I was little, in which everybody followed this line
> whatever you were talking about.
> There's a book by Arthur Schopenhauer called "Die
> Kunst, Recht zu behalten", ("El arte de tener razón"
> in Spanish, "The art of being in the right" or "The
> Art of Controversy" in English) where all those tricks
> are explained (how to win an argument without having
> real reasons behind)

Not seeing your point here.

> > Anybody who reads a piece of text and expects to be
> > offended, will
> > be. Anybody who reads the same piece of text and
> > expects not to be
> > offended, won't be. The contents of the text do not
> > matter.
> BTW, we're making some definite comments on certain 
> words, and justifying it.

You can do that for *any* word and *any* interpretation. What makes
these ones right and others wrong?

> ---------------------------------------------------
> "Advice for dealing with the flamepit"
> I've tried being sensitive to the feelings of other 
> people, but there are six billion other people
> stomping
> around the planet, and each one is completely 
> different. My brain is barely big enough to know what 
> my own body is feeling. I mean, sometimes when I get
> an
> itch, I scratch three different body parts before I 
> find it. [...]
> There is only one effective response when accused of 
> insensitivity: Accuse your accuser of a sin called 
> political correctness. Political correctness is a 
> totally meaningless phrase, similar to
> "insensitivity."
> Neither has any useful meaning because they both 
> describe every person on earth. [...] Yet many people 
> are so bothered by the label "politically correct"
> that
> they will withdraw their accusations of insensitivity 
> and apologize for being so testy. This is another case
> of stupidity triumphing over stupidity. It shouldn't 
> work, but it does. You might as well take advantage of
> it.
> (Source: Scott Adams, "Dilbert: The Joy of Work")
> ---------------------------------------------------

Yes, Scott Adams is quite familiar with the problem. Along with this
piece of text, he gave numerous examples of strips and complaint
letters received about them. It's quite educational for people who
think that there is some single right way to do things.

The title of this section is really appropriate. It's "People who are
angry for no good reason".

Anything you do will offend somebody, and that includes your attempts
to avoid offending people.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: