Words matter
Propaganda works
I’ve always said that if you really wanted communism or socialism to take off in the states you’re gonna have to call it something else
I also don’t use cis because the machine has already made that a thing people don’t want to be called
I don’t mind being called a cis male, but I’m secure in my sexuality and manhood. Conservatives not so much.
“Cis” is fucking silly, that’s why I don’t like it. We already had “hetero”. It’s like “they/them” for an individual. Try reading a novel where one charter is “they/them”. It’s needlessly confusing, and bring the hate, it’s a stupid fad. Seen this kinda thing come and go, 20-years, no one will be using it.
Try reading a novel where one charter is “they/them”. It’s needlessly confusing, and bring the hate, it’s a stupid fad.
It’s literally been used in the singular for hundreds of years for any individual where the gender is not known, and has never in my life been confusing. For example:
“The suspect entered the store, then they exited through the back.”
English is my first and nearly only language and has been for 42 years, and there has never been a time that a singular “they” was not used. It is not a fad, the fad is taking issue with it. And hopefully in 20 years we won’t have to deal with this fake “all of a sudden” bullshit, whether it’s “they/them,” vaccines, or any other nonsense that people suddenly take issue with because some talking head told them to and acted like it was new.
While it’s true that the singular they/them has been used for a very long time, it was used in a very narrow context. It was used almost exclusively for an unknown person, or a theoretical person. In your example, the suspect is unknown, if it was known that it was a male suspect or a female suspect, the suspect would no longer be as unknown and so the sentence would probably be changed to “The suspect entered the store, then she exited through the back.”
You can tell that it had a very restricted use because of how “themselves” was used. For example, “anybody who wants one can get themselves a beer”. That’s a singular construction, but in a way that it might apply to multiple people individually. There was no need for “themself” because “they” was always used for unknown or theoretical people.
Using it for a known person, especially a person who might be currently sitting in the room, is a brand new and confusing use. Now, it’s not like English doesn’t have other confusions, even around pronouns. Take: “she was drunk and her mother was angry, and she slapped her”. Who slapped whom? Sometimes the pronouns alone aren’t enough and you need to restructure the sentence to make it more clear. But, the fact that the singular they is used with the same verb forms as the plural they can add extra confusion. Take a non-binary player playing a team sport: “They’re not playing well but they are.” If the personal pronoun version used “is” instead of “are” it would be less confusing in situations like this, but it would be more confusing in other ways because “they” could use both plural and singular verb forms.
It would be just as confusing if people suddenly started using “one” as a pronoun not used for a theoretical person, but for a concrete and actual person. One has been used as a subject pronoun: “One must remain vigilant”, and an object pronoun: “Wounds can make one weary.” But, it is always a theoretical construction, it has never been used to refer to a specific, known person. So, it would be confusing to start using it that way: “Give it to one, one doesn’t have one yet.” But, even that would be less confusing than singular “they”, because at least “one” uses singular verb forms, etc.
They/them for a specific, known individual is a new way of using “singular they” and it adds a lot of confusion You can argue that despite the confusion it’s necessary, but you can’t pretend that it doesn’t add confusion.
I don’t think it adds any more confusion than the pre-existing pronoun confusion you already described as part of the language (your she and her example) and there is already an established answer for it (you don’t use a pronoun for one of them, you use their actual name or what you are referring to).
Pretending that it adds some grand new confusion that makes it difficult to keep up with because in very rare circumstances someone who is already really bad at communicating with pronouns (because one would have to have problems with your “she slapped her” reference to have problems with singular they/them) might have difficulty communicating what they mean by “them.”
Language reflects the culture in which it is used. In these times, there’s more acceptance (though not universal) of the premises that a) sex and gender identity are separate concepts, and b) a person can have a gender identity that does not map onto a ‘male/man-female/woman’ scheme.
Given this, singular they/them makes sense - on discovering the identity of individual who, while almost certainly male or female (though intersex exceptions exist), does not neatly fit into the category of man or woman, they can remain a ‘they’ where someone who is distinctly a man or woman doesn’t. This assumes they do not use other pronouns (some do, but neopronouns get a lot of flack).
I’ll be candid and say I don’t get why this throws people off, and I’ve had to fight prescriptivist English profs about it before. It only makes sense to me if we discard the premises noted at the beginning, and that doesn’t make sense to me. To my fellow men - how many times have you been told you are/are not a man on the basis of factors beyond having an Y chromosome, a dick and male secondary sexual characteristics? And you’re still certain that gender identity is inherent on the basis of biological sex alone, rather than related but distinct social constructions?
does not neatly fit into the category of man or woman
What defines the category of man?
Great question, and one that’s pretty fraught at the moment. I don’t have an answer beyond a tautology - a man is someone who identifies as a man - and the knowledge that some cultures assign adherence to certain behavioural norms to that (ex. A man acts as breadwinner, is competitive, has a certain type of physicality distinct from women, etc.), most of which crumble with any hard look at them.
To be frank, I don’t really care about what a man or woman is. If identifying as a man if female, or a woman if male, makes it so someone doesn’t want to blow their brains out, then that’s a cool and good thing. But note the distinction - man != male and woman != female in my statement.
some cultures assign adherence to certain behavioural norms to that
Isn’t that sexism, something we should be fighting by saying “women can do that too?”
Cis is just the opposite of trans, but it has nothing to do with orientation. You can be cis and heterosexual, you can be cis and homosexual.
Honestly did not know that. Don’t know how I would have, given the context in which cis is commonly applied. Context being: heterosexual male. Additional context: Often as an insult. See also: Breeder. (Was that usage archaic? More on that in a moment.)
So we really need a word to define 99.5% of Earth’s population? When we have a word to define the remaining .05%? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?!
20-years, no one will be using it
Been there, seen that, done that. And fuck anyone who doesn’t like it. I’ve equated trans rights with civil rights since before most of you kids touched social media.
Yes, we do need a word, because it’s useful to be able to describe things. That’s what language is for.
Further context you may not know: “cis” is indeed much older than even the internet.
Dude not even heard of Transjordan and Cisjordan?
Don’t know how I would have
School? It’s a scientific term, trans people did not invent it.
Context being: heterosexual male.
That is not the context it is used in.
“Blue” is fucking silly, that’s why I don’t like it. We already had “tall”.
Those are two different things. Please look up what these terms means.
What’s wrong with the Commonwealth of Independent States?
This one gets it. The key takeaway should be that humans are very fallible and propaganda works alarmingly well.
We shouldn’t be trusted with our own care.
Fucking lazy ass aliens taking their sweet time… Just invade and incorporate us into your galactic empire already!
… For what reason?
Not being too sarcastic, but what makes you think we’d be interested in a backwater planet full of hairless great apes?
Yeah, straight/heterosexual people didn’t want to be called that, either. They want being cis and heterosexual to just be “normal” and any variation to be abnormal. Fuck that, they’ll do the same thing to whatever euphemism you pick instead.
It might have something to do with the word ‘cis’ being used as a slur and a form of othering early on
Oh bullshit. No one in the history of ever has been offended by “straight/heterosexual”.
The timeline is this. The 1950s boomed and created the middle class. Why? FDR decided subsidizing the American people, instead of the robber Baron class, was the way. This subsidy approach to the working class had never happened before in American history.
A middle class cannot happen organically in a capitalist society. It requires government subsidy.
The 50s were built on the backs of women, forcibly ejecting them from workplaces to be housewives, and excluded people who were not white. But the American middle class was born due to these subsidies.
And so it went.
Then, in the 80s. The concept of the evil welfare queen was touted on the national level, and our government decided subsidizing corporate instead of a middle class was the way.
This doesn’t happen overnight, but they begin chipping away at subsidies for Middle Class America and flip those subsidies to corporate America. The belief is, or at least the sales pitch is, subsidizing corporate America is more fiscally efficient than subsidizing the middle class and will ultimately benefit everyone to create a booming, thriving nation.
And so it goes for 40 yrs. Both parties, in tandem.
The chipping away to go back to the subsidizing of a middle class started in the oddest of places. 2020. After the massive destruction of the middle class, and abject proof of how disastrous to the working class subsidizing corporate America is, absolutely squeezing everyone making less than $300k/yr, by the numbers, it was that old man’s admin that tried to shift back on the disaster. Infrastructure, junk fees, internet as an essential utility, student loan forgiveness, etc
The breadth of the problem cannot be fixed in 4 yrs. Or even 8 yrs. Consider how long it took from the 80s to truly feel the oppressive shift of the subsidy change. (I’m old. I mark ~2012-2014 when things started to feel squeezed.)
Also note that you can’t mention Reagan or trickle down economics in this or you lose people.
Could FDR have done what he did without what Theodire Roosevelt did? Teddy has his faults but I feel he built the groundwork that FDR could build on. Granted it had diminished between them, but he faught for the inheritance tax and income tax to become a thing rather than just Tariffs. Tariffs were what were used at the time and created the “Robber Barons” that the Heritage foundation is trying to re-establish.
This is not my area. I’ve simply consumed a lot of Heather Cox Richardson. She’s a Harvard educated American History professor. Posts on YT. Not very popular last check.
It’s calm, historical perspective which I rather enjoy.
I’ll have to try to remember that, I’ll bookmark her. Been trying to listen to ebooks and such when I lay down to sleep now, it actually has been helping me fall asleep much easier. Hardest part is remembering where you left off if you care about the books. I’ll have to find one of those don’t stop playing after the screen is off and see if I can listen to her as well. (Instead of laying there for an hour feeling like I’m not tired and fidgetting I just listen and I’m usually asleep in 30 minutes now). <Vast improvement
Smart audiobook reader has a sleep timer so does YouTube revanced
Welfare isn’t assistance to the poor. Welfare Is specifically designed to degrade and humiliate the poor.
I’d bet if we started calling them “societal subscription fees” people would be much cooler with taxes.
Nah, gotta go all in with that Battle Pass. Unlock perks like drivers license skins, use of the HOV lane, etc. really gameify the system and get those hardcore competitive type-A executives working on high scores.
One of many lasting “gifts” of Reagan.
I’m glad Reagan’s dead
I’m not. I much rather he lived forever. Forever wasting away, seeing his loved ones perish, losing his sanity little by ever so fucking little, inhabiting a hell all of his own.
Regan
loved ones
I don’t think it’s healthy to dehumanize our villains. He probably had loved ones. You don’t need to be a monster to do monstrous things. All humans have that capability within, you and me included.
It’s like that famous answer to “what stops you from murdering and raping?” “Nothing, I rape and murder as much as I want, which is zero."
We’ve got to get all those
welfare queens25 year old males playing video games back to work! They’re getting a free ride that they don’t deserve. People only have value when they are working!dont you love the misogyny in that “queens” label? because who makes a better scapegoat than black mothers?
He started that evil welfare queen idea back in California. It gained traction there so he continued to use it on the national side.
Wym? Just a few more decades, and the trickling down will surely start. I can already taste it on their boots
Related Links:
- June 16, 2025 | https://apnorc.org/projects/few-want-spending-on-federal-benefit-programs-reduced/ | https://archive.ph/EuDrn
- Feb 14, 2025 | https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/where-u-s-adults-think-the-government-is-spending-too-much-and-too-little-according-to-ap-norc-poll
- February 14, 2025 | https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/us-government-overspending-foreign-aid-poll/3674663/
- February 14, 2025 | https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-government-spending-social-security-medicare-8a8ddb0e721355a4e9585da4147efe1a
- Feb. 17, 2025 | https://www.thegazette.com/federal-government/poll-u-s-spends-too-much-but-not-on-social-security/
Kinda like ACA/Obamacare.
I’m of the opinion Americans want help and want to help others, but get lost in political rhetoric and a culture war designed to ensure no one gets anything.
Our old babysitter lost her insurance and was suffering. Ex-wife suggested the ACA, showed her how to apply.
“Thank you so much! At least it isn’t that damned Obamacare!”
These people exist, millions of them. And most Americans can’t fucking read and understand a novel.
As an old friend of mine once had a habit of saying in a sing song voice:
Read a book, read a book, read a motherfucking book!
Nah. A lot of people are stupid and selfish. You should look into the new evangelical mantra that “empathy is a sin”.
Having briefed a number of senior American bureaucrats and military officers I find it best to use:
- words of one syllable or less.
- no more than three primary colours.
- no numbers larger than 5.
If it’s the particular words that are the issue you have a bigger problem than just helping the poor, which is a laudable goal. Hups, I just used an obscure word and alienated the dummies.
A favourite cognitive bias is the role of emotions in persuasion and decision making. Arguments are much more persuasive if they make us feel good, regardless of the evidence.
It’s interesting to watch an AI reason these issues because we’re reasonably sure it doesn’t have feelings and should be immune to the pitfalls of having an ego.
It’s interesting to watch an AI reason these issues
AI doesn’t reason shit lol
You don’t reason lol
AI reason
Any researcher will tell you that these programs do not reason
Americans are one of the most gullible populations on Earth. Russians are worse…but Americans are not far behind.
Nah the usa is worse. Russia is a dictatorship, it is risky for your life and family to oppose putin
Russians may actually be less gullible. Read an interesting article on the subject of Russian propaganda. They know it’s bullshit, always have. The government lies, and that’s life. Twist is, they view Western media as exactly the same level of propaganda.
tl;dr: Most Americans can’t seem to apply critical thinking. Russians don’t bother.
Lol! That’s an interesting take. I’ve never thought of it like that…but it does fit.
Wish I could forward you the article, been a few years. Yeah, that woke me. Russians, of whom I am not a fan, aren’t as dumb as they’re made out. They’re simply jaded as fuck.
People who knew the vietnam war was bullshit defected. There’s a million dead russians who didn’t know.
Ton of people in the usa still believe communism is the ultimate evil that justified vietnam war
Yes, we should all be highly critical of our governments, especially our politicians and the military (paid puppets of the oligarchy).
Building up an independent working-class movement should be our priority.
You should check out Kshama Sawant and Workers Strike Back.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin
I heard a working theory that we have too many humans on the planet. Some of them were supposed to be reincarnated as ferrets or insects but came back as humans instead. These are the people who are now in charge.
I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that modern medicine has saved the life of too many idiots who went on to have idiot children. It’s hard to have that conversation without people assuming you’re venturing into eugenics but it is a real thing.
Idiocracy is real! I just thought it would actually be hundreds of years into the future, not 20.
They got me! I have to admit, “welfare” leaves a bad taste in my mouth where “helping the poor” sounds fair enough. I grew up under Reagan, heard the bullshit, know it’s bullshit, I get it.
And you know damned well what those words really mean. Welfare = black, poor people = whites. (That’s from a GenX perspective.)
So weird. As a Scandinavian, “welfare” to me means schools, healthcare, elderly care, sick pay, paid parental leave etc., paid for by the shared burden of taxes for the benefit of everyone.
It is a word with entirely positive connotations for me.
Our famous and revered constitution actually says in its thesis statement that one of the purposes of our government is to provide for the general welfare
Welfare = black, poor people = whites.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
To me the negative connotation of “welfare” is, Kafkaesque bureaucracy used to gate access. Actually being on it feels more like you are playing a fucked up game than receiving assistance.
I hear this, and also some flavor of people gaming the system.
I don’t like that I hear these things. But something definitely weaseled its way in.
People acting like gaming welfare is easy. Fuck me, it’s a full-time job getting anything at all.
For example: Been thinking about trying to get some food stamps. Wife works, I’m unemployed, maybe get a little of the tax money back from when I was making bank? Maybe get a pittance of unemployment? I can scarcely imagine navigating all the bullshit if I wasn’t technically capable. Kafkaesque bureaucracy indeed.
I got fired from a job, rather unjustly, and attempted to file for unemployment.
It made no sense, I could not navigate my states website (which didn’t want to play well with Linux anyway), so I gave up. Which is the point.
One time an employer fired me and refused to pay me after discovering I was trans, and it literally took 6 months to get that check. The system is designed to fuck people.
Reagan’s smear campaign on welfare is still paying dividends
That’s just associations’ war.
Complex words have more specific associations. Except specific associations are easier to change via propaganda than generic associations. And people love to pretend to be smart like I do, so use complex words when they can.
This rule shouldn’t be limited to outsiders. It should be used when talking to your own as well. Using compound concepts of simpler ones in discussion helps preserve understanding (and filter the kind of people not better than tankies).
Reminds me of how many people were really against Obamacare, but loved the Affordable Care Act.
