Called what?
1800s rulings
Good call
Called what?
That shes a phony .
Father knows best
one of the landmark supreme court decisions in US history
the guy was only 1/8 black (exactly like the situation you described)
the guy had white skin
he was still legally treated as black
Oh, you wouldn't vote for a phony?
1800s ruling. Good call
Exactly. The Supreme Court’s ruling still stands as far as the definition as to who is white and who is not.
And in Indiana its illegal to ridde a horse over 10mph
Good luck enforcing both laws
One year ago, Harris tweeted that she would "take executive action to:
"Revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers & dealers that break the law.
"Require anyone who sells more than 5 guns/yr to run a background check on all gun sales.
"Ban the importation of AR-15-style assault weapons."
On May 20 of this year, Harris said she would also ban states from enacting "stand your ground" laws, which permit armed homeowners to defend themselves against the threat of murder, rape, kidnapping or bodily harm rather than retreat.
It bothers me. I'm latino.
As to why, it's the bas ization of an already very rich language...
Iden y politics smh
The taboo around gendered speech is a relative novelty. Social change can be rugged for old timers like you and me. You don't have to agree, but the custom is whatever it is at any particular time.
imo it comes down to showing basic consideration and respect for other people.
You wouldn't pronounce someone's name wrong on purpose, right?
I don't think it has to do with young or old. I think it has to do with being well spoken, and understanding that communication is a critical part of our society.
I don't particularly mind if a he wants me to call him a she... but the notion that we need to scrub away gender or sex from the language is simply unwarranted and destructive.
For you perhaps, for others it might be otherwise.. Not respecting forms of address might be destructive for them, just as acknowleging those forms of address might be destructive for you.
I'm not doctrinaire about this, I take it case by case, fwiw.
Also, modern English has been lacking the neuter gender -- Early Modern and Medieval English didn't. Some of the so-called novelties have historical pedigree.
(Obviously, some don't and are true novelties.)
Don't they want to do away with grammar too? Maybe we can just grunt - free for all - anything goes.
Sure, it's my opinion, never stated otherwise. I'm just making my case. I understand if as a society we want to accommodate concepts such as gender-neutral, I frankly don't oppose that, as it doesn't generally affects me, and if it makes somebody feel good, what's the big deal.
However, when you start imposing, and it does affect me, and I feel it's not an improvement over what we had, then I speak out my mind. Deep down, I don't think it brings clarity or conciseness, but the other way around, and that's why I think it's destructive (in language/communication terms, not social terms).
After all, the vast majority of people do identify with a gender. To be clear, my problem isn't with the addition of a new word to describe these people, but the somewhat forced replacement of other perfectly valid words in order to accommodate them.
Lastly, I was speaking about Spanish. Latino means the same and is written the same, but it's a language with much more pronounced gender differentiation, and I feel in that case is really diluting the language.
I haven't heard of that.
What the are you hob knobs even talking about?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)