Feminist ideologists have renamed The Ottoman Empire

@presumably said in #19:
> If I had to choose between renaming "manhole" to "maintainance hole", or siding with Andrew Tate, I would choose the former one million times.

If Hitler didn't like his neighbors playing loud music at night, must I like my neighbors playing loud music at night?

My knowledge of Mr. Tate comes from his Wikipedia entry, but he does seem to be quite the a-hole. Simultaneously, the changing of words to become more PC-friendly is making communication harder while creating unnecessary conflicts based around incorrect assumptions of misogyny. One does not cause the other.

@presumably said in #19:
> Do people who get upset about that not have anything more important to be upset about? Like for instance, the fact that a rapist is poisoning young people's minds under the cover of "motivational coaching".

Definition of Rapist:
NOUN
a person who commits Rape.

Definition of Rape:
NOUN
the crime of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their own will.

Definition of Motivational:
designed to promote the desire or willingness to do or achieve something

Definition of Coaching:
Coaching is the process of training somebody to play a sport, to do a job better or to improve a skill.

@presumably said in #19:
> Do people who get upset about that not have anything more important to be upset about? Like for instance, the fact that a rapist is poisoning young people's minds under the cover of "motivational coaching".

I don't understand the relationship between Rape and Motivational Coaching.

One word:

Woman.

What? You think it’s an oxymoron?

Human, fireman, mailman, milkman, policeman, repairman, serviceman — all share the same suffix, and guess what? That suffix is functionally neuter. There is no more need to say policewoman than there is to say huwoman. -man is still present; by adding two letters before it, you haven’t actually changed anything. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄

The premise that -man applies only to biological males is false. Therefore any conclusion drawn from that premise is equally false, even if it’s valid. (And, in most cases, it isn’t even that.) This whole line of “reasoning” is also bizarrely inconsistent with the rest of what’s being said about gender nowadays. (But then, I stopped expecting the people who say such things not to contradict themselves a long time ago.) . . .

Heaven forbid anyone should figure out that person has -son in it. (Perdaughter, anyone?) :-P Yes, *I* know it comes from the Latin per sona, or “through sound” — e.g., the mask worn by an actor in the days before microphones existed, that was his persona, through which the sound of his character’s voice was projected from the stage — I know that, but I wouldn’t put it past the ignoramuses now attacking -man to go after -son next, using the same half-baked pseudo logic. -_-

Anyone seeking to change a language should first learn how that language actually works. And then surrender to history, when you realize that no language has ever been a top-down process. Language emerges from precedent and convention — if anything in this world is actually democratic, language is — so any and all attempts to control it from on high are doomed to fail before they even begin.

@clousems I said nothing of the sort. In fact, few things annoys me more than neighbours having loud music at night.

But you see, as soon as one opens a thread making fun of "feminist ideologists" (while the fault is entirely with PC bureaucrats), young brainwashed people propose to "call Andrew Tate". And I would even contend that blaming feminism instead of bureaucracy for the matter at hand is, in a way, calling for this.

So, I get it: making fun of those damn snowflaky "feminist ideologists" is more entertaining and might make one feel better about themselves than making fun of Andrew Tate, but I think Andrew Tate is way more dangerous than the Elimination of Harmful Words Initiative (don't get me wrong: the EHWI is completely ludicrous, counter-productive, and as I said in my firdt post, probably purposely so. But it isn't in itself a danger to society).

One issue is probably increasing polarization. Yet, what my latest post suggest is that it is probably more useful to speak against things that are really dangerous or harmful rather than focusing on relatively benign issues. And I have the feeling that in the off-topic section we see way more of the later than the former.

@ThePracticeGuy said in #22:
> I don't understand the relationship between Rape and Motivational Coaching.
Because there is none, and I didn't try to make one.
Andrew Tate is also a "motivational coach" whose message is toxic.
Andrew Tate is also a rapist.
And that's it.

@pawnedge said in #23:
> so any and all attempts to control it from on high are doomed to fail before they even begin.
EXACTLY. And this also implies there is no need to make a big fuss about it. It's gonna fail anyway.

@presumably said in #24:
> So, I get it: making fun of those damn snowflaky "feminist ideologists" is more entertaining and might make one feel better about themselves than making fun of Andrew Tate, but I think Andrew Tate is way more dangerous than the Elimination of Harmful Words Initiative (don't get me wrong: the EHWI is completely ludicrous, counter-productive, and as I said in my firdt post, probably purposely so. But it isn't in itself a danger to society).

Nah. I would like to make fun of Andrew Tate as well, but I don't know enough of him. From headlines I gathered that he's a loonie manosphere-influencer that got arested in Romania for sex traficking, but that's all I know.

@presumably said in #24:
> "call Andrew Tate"

It was just a joke...

@presumably said in #25:
> Andrew Tate is also a "motivational coach" whose message is toxic.

In what way are his messages toxic?

I think this topic should get closed.
1. OP disrespects the Ottoman empire
2. This topic will turn into an argument
3. This topic is moving towards Andrew Tate which has nothing to do with this thread
4. I'm getting tired from posting here