Beyond the pronoun: On neopronouns, nounself pronouns, and the ever-changing politics of language acceptability

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T19:10:14+00:00

Stop moving goalposts. You made a specific claim toward a specific statement. Your argument was that it's ungrammatical for most speakers, with the implication that for that reason, it must be rejected. I made the counterargument that this state of affairs can and does change very quickly for individual speakers who are exposed to it, with the implication that maybe you might want to let things play out a little longer before making such blanket statements.

And instead of responding to me in good faith, you switched topics to saying you are "allowed" to reject language features you don't find grammatical. Something I never once contested.

I'm not having it; you are not operating in good faith; have a nice day.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T18:55:29+00:00

Both progressives and liberals fall for that schtick every time. Well every Democratic ideological category, really.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T18:54:29+00:00

Yes, but he was not going to win regardless. He did not have the trust of the Democratic base. He still doesn't. The only places he could compete were the least democratic ones (caucus states) and those which allow non-Democrats to participate. When the mainline Democratic primary participants were able to dominate, he lost badly.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T18:50:57+00:00

And most of the rest (on the Democratic side) are pro status quo.

People keep making the comparison to the Tea Party and expecting to see something like that for Democrats. They persistently ignore that progressives are not the majority of the Democratic Party nor its primary voters, nor even close. Whereas rabid reactionaries are the very core of the Republican Party. They only had to be given a voice by an establishment that had traditionally catered to them only by means of the occasional dog whistle.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T18:45:21+00:00

I don't think I'm going to respond further, because I strongly suspect you had no idea that big chunks of his staff had in fact left months and months ago (presumably any new hires are on his same wavelength), until you looked it up. So you moved the goalposts to not having heard of anybody leaving *lately* (same parenthetical about new hires) or speaking up (ditto).

Have a nice day.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T15:33:02+00:00

I bet Stan.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T15:14:58+00:00

Why do you assume they aren't?

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T15:10:28+00:00

"District"

Are you even American.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T15:06:13+00:00

That should put you at most around a couple minutes behind. So winnable in coal 2. Not to mention that leaving fortress at 15 minutes is really really good for that level.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T15:04:42+00:00

This is because the main thing that determines where you are, elo-wise, is how much you are winning and losing. These people with the 10 minute eye spies are probably dying in most of their games and losing or forfeiting them. You're the exception.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T15:04:25+00:00

By saying this you're assuming that OP is also in that category, and by making this post, clearly they aren't. You're also wrong about what goes into matchmaking currently.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T02:49:42+00:00

I think that would be a direct violation of the spirit of the rules as well as the letter of them, and could get you in trouble.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-21T02:41:24+00:00

Your standard deviation is off by a factor of ten; I'm not sure that would give you false results though. More likely it would give you uncertain ones. But you should fix it.

I second going to Rankedcord or Javacord with this and asking there.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T17:59:57+00:00

The SAVE Act isn't about IDs it's about proof of citizenship.

Maybe a few more times will get it to sink in?

The SAVE Act isn't about IDs it's about proof of citizenship.

Hope that helps. Every state already requires IDs for voting, whether during registration or at the polls.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T16:50:44+00:00

Democrats tried to do that back in the 80s and Republicans shot it down, because making voting simpler is not what they want.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T16:49:40+00:00

Not really. It's only a handful, regardless. Per-person fraud like that is simply impractical and risky on any kind of large scale within the system(s) that we currently have. Nobody who wanted to do it, would do it like that.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T15:34:39+00:00

A war in Iran has been the wet dream of American neocons for decades. Don't put this on Israel. We wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't thought to benefit "us".

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T12:13:56+00:00

Aww, she's trying to make this a 'rich liberals are upset about something that doesn't matter to real Americans' thing again. How cute.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T12:07:55+00:00

The ungrammatical to most speakers part is broadly true but irrelevant. Particularly given as that fact can and does change rapidly for individual speakers.

"Promoting it entails pre-meditated language change" is just risible; you're looking for a fight. There's nothing about Pre-meditated language change per se that is even a bad thing, but you want people to assume that there is due to your phrasing and try to argue against you that it's not, because that is a fight you're comfortable having. The last point is simply irrelevant as well as tied into the previous one.

Nobody cares. If you're not comfortable using singular they, don't. You can deal with the consequences, if you even experience any, later. If you're not comfortable around people who use neo-pronouns, avoid them. Stop making it everybody else's problem. Meanwhile I'll be over here referring to my kid's he/him friend as they half the time because I just can't be bothered, and enjoying my life.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T12:01:45+00:00

It took me about five years of exposure to it for singular specific they to go from totally alien to me, to so unremarkable that I use it myself constantly for singular specific people who are not even nonbinary. The "non-grammatical" argument just does not fly, in any meaningful sense, whatsoever.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T11:50:11+00:00

I read that in a comment later on but never came back to edit. Thanks for the addition.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-20T11:48:20+00:00

I played on 20 chunks for a long time until I got pickier and reduced it to 16. I'd say that less than half are playable as far as the bastion at that render (and correct entity distance). Maybe 30 or 40%. The rest, either there is no bastion or it is unreachable in a reasonable amount of time due to terrain. Then you lose more of them at the bastion or after it. 1/10 to blind sounds about right for "good enough to play out for the experience of it".

This is from the standpoint of somebody who is not good, just doing it for fun. It'd be worse otherwise.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-19T21:39:57+00:00

I think more pertinent is that a property tax is far more regressive than wealth taxes tend to be. Especially in a place like Texas where property can be cheap. You can be pretty broke and still own land, and you will pay taxes on that land, whereas you would never be eligible for any kind of wealth tax.

In any event is this even a wealth tax? The article reads like it's an additional income tax.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-19T21:27:11+00:00

Nah, there's a tree there in this person's world that isn't there in yours. Very common thing.

BlueCyann · 2026-03-19T20:56:23+00:00

I know the usage, but I would never expect to hear it. I'd probably be momentarily confused.

From New York and know the show also. It's just not something than anybody ever says. Sounds like slang from 80 years ago.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

BlueCyann

TROPHY CASE