The HuPeople Are Coming

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: JackTaylorFan taking a holiday. Please don't respond.

Malayalam

inforfun wrote: »

I have no time for that twat but it might be possible it was just a "joke" from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z10goVbpLw0

This one doesnt cut off straight after the remark.

Yeah, it might have been a joke, it's pretty hard to know these days what's for laughs He does seem to have a record, though, when it comes to being ideologically PC.

Anyways, maybe it's the 'event horizon' as Candie said earlier - a parody, intentional or not - and people will wise up that the goal of this kind of stuff is a farce.

Pepefrogok

Malayalam wrote: »

Yeah, it might have been a joke, it's pretty hard to know these days what's for laughs He does seem to have a record, though, when it comes to being ideologically PC.

Anyways, maybe it's the 'event horizon' as Candie said earlier - a parody, intentional or not - and people will wise up that the goal of this kind of stuff is a farce.

But stuff like this is actually happening..

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/02/05/officials-postpone-schools-daddy-daughter-dance-due-to-nycs-gender-neutral-policy/

inforfun

Oh yeah, you will not see me in his fan club.
I trust people like that as far as i can throw them.

In the Netherlands we have his clone, Jesse Klaver. Including the white shirt\rolled up sleeves.
Front man of the Green left (Groen Links) a party originating from left wing terrorists, die hard communists and other such pleasant people.

shootermacg

I don't think anyone wants to offend women, or can argue that they haven't been marginalized throughout the centuries. A lot of the language we use today, comes from a time where women were considered property.

The world is changing, every generation accepts the language of the times and their viewpoint is shaped by it. The young accept this and, the old do not, that's just evolution and obsolescence.

So if you have issues with something that requires so little effort to correct, go away and have a good look at yourself.

Malayalam

shootermacg wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to offend women, or can argue that they haven't been marginalized throughout the centuries. A lot of the language we use today, comes from a time where women were considered property.

The world is changing, every generation accepts the language of the times and their viewpoint is shaped by it. The young accept this and, the old do not, that's just evolution and obsolescence.

So if you have issues with something that requires so little effort to correct, go away and have a good look at yourself.

I don't think it is about stuffy old folk not accepting changing times. Really, it cuts to something far deeper. This suggestion of insult at every slightest thing is undermining of women. This erasure of history, the denial of biology, so many aspects of human experience over aeons being fudged. As a female I am not even vaguely bothered by the words mankind, human, woman, and not even by other less fundamental words like manager, manhandle, and so on. They just do not register as a problem because I feel quite at ease. These words have history. Etymology traces words back to real time origins long ago where words often derived from specific actions and physical realities, such as agriculture, warfare, nurture etc. - to deny, much worse to erase, history and the evolution of things including words is a dangerous course. To suggest that women can only be equal if we use only certain language and ban other words outright is to denigrate the true strength and equality of women. It is patronising, demeaning in fact.
If you want to know what ''man'' means, research it. It is a difficult and undecided etymology. Most experts converge on the idea that it was intended to mean all people, everyone, the earth dwellers.

Extract from Wikipedia (there will be other more academic sources, I'm sure, but this will suffice to show that words are complex creations...)

It is derived from a Proto-Indo-European root *man- (see Sanskrit/Avestan manu-, Slavic mǫž "man, male").[1] The Slavic forms (Russian muzh "man, male" etc.) are derived from a suffixed stem *man-gyo-.[citation needed]

In Hindu mythology, Manu is the name of the traditional progenitor of humankind who survives a deluge and gives mankind laws. The hypothetically reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form *Manus may also have played a role in Proto-Indo-European religion based on this, if there is any connection with the figure of Mannus — reported by the Roman historian Tacitus in ca. AD 70 to be the name of a traditional ancestor of the Germanic peoples and son of Tuisto; modern sources other than Tacitus have reinterpreted this as "first man".[2]

In Old English the words wer and wīf (and wīfmann) were used to refer to "a man" and "a woman" respectively, while mann had the primary meaning of "adult male human" but could also be used for gender neutral purposes (as is the case with modern German man, corresponding to the pronoun in the English utterance "one does what one must").

Some etymologies treat the root as an independent one, as does the American Heritage Dictionary. Of the etymologies that do make connections with other Indo-European roots, man "the thinker" is the most traditional — that is, the word is connected with the root *men- "to think" (cognate to mind). This etymology relies on humans describing themselves as "those who think" (see Human self-reflection). This etymology, however, is not generally accepted. A second potential etymology connects with Latin manus ("hand"), which has the same form as Sanskrit manus.[3]

Another speculative etymology postulates the reduction of the ancestor of "human" to the ancestor of "man". Human is from *dhghem-, "earth", thus implying *(dh)ghom-on- would be an "earthdweller". The latter word, when reduced to just its final syllable, would be merely *m-on-[citation needed]. This is the view of Eric Partridge, Origins, under man. Such a derivation might be credible if only the Germanic form was known, but the attested Indo-Iranian manu virtually excludes the possibility. Moreover, *(dh)ghom-on- is known to have survived in Old English not as mann but as guma, the ancestor of the second element of the Modern English word bridegroom.[4]

In the late twentieth century, the generic meaning of "man" declined (but is also continued in compounds "mankind", "everyman", "no-man", etc.).[5] The same thing has happened to the Latin word homo: in most of the Romance languages, homme, uomo, hombre, homem have come to refer mainly to males, with a residual generic meaning. The exception is Romanian, where om refers to a 'human', vs. bărbat (male).

Adamocovic

Such a ridiculous thing for him to say.
Man, Woman, human, mankind. What on earth is the problem here.

I don't understand people who have problems such as this. It's from years of language progression originating from Germanic. Heavens above. I honestly think some people could find anything in the world to offend them, and too many people are facilitating to those people.

jiltloop

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Could he stand up to international terrorism?

I doubt it.

No, that would be offensive to people in wheelchairs.

jiltloop

wexie wrote: »

Humankind isn't inclusive enough?

Not inclusive enough for who? Are there aliens I don't know about? When did women and all other new genders stop being human?
Or is it that human contains the word 'man'? And if that's the case then what in the name of John, Paul, George and Ringo are we going to refer to females as?

Wopeople?

Careful now, you should have said fepeople instead of females.

CruelCoin

jiltloop wrote: »

Careful now, you should have said fepeople instead of females.

Isn't that meant to be "cishet"?

Or some other pick-and-mix gender spaghetti... I don't know anymore.

CruelCoin

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Putin will save us!!! Riding a bear bareback a d shooting his AK-74.

Ah lads, he's glorious.

conorhal

shootermacg wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to offend women, or can argue that they haven't been marginalized throughout the centuries. A lot of the language we use today, comes from a time where women were considered property.

The world is changing, every generation accepts the language of the times and their viewpoint is shaped by it. The young accept this and, the old do not, that's just evolution and obsolescence.

So if you have issues with something that requires so little effort to correct, go away and have a good look at yourself.

There's a big difference between an evolving language and a small coterie of hardcore ideologues defining 'wrong-speach' and 'right speach'.
Words make it into the dictionary because people are using them, not because they are the new mandated terms you have to look up or risk falling foul of a hectoring from your Prime minister.

As Jordan Peterson said, "if you want to change the language, write a book!". Shakespeare threw a whole host of commonplace words into our everyday vernacular in a manner that hectoring people for wrong-speach never will.
I get the feeling that such left wing authoritarianism will only end with everbody simply reffering to each other by using the gender neutral term 'comrade'.....

.

FTA69

Women in Yemen are currently starving en masse and being bombed by Saudi Arabia, probably the most anti-woman government in the world. For years, Canada has sold arms to this government (a £12bn deal that Trudeau allowed to proceed) and is complicit in the above.

Perhaps if he cared so much about women being included, he'd stop facilitating their death abroad. This is the identity politics liberalism at its worst; preoccupied with nitpicking around language and optics while doing absolutely nothing to really address power or those who wield it.

It's a smokescreen.

Bigtoe107

If I could thank posts 114 and 107 twice I would. Nail on the head for me. 
Trudeau is a 100% coached, fake laughing, fake smiling, shell of a person. 
It's all a smokescreen. 
I think fundamentally humans can never fully understand the consequences of our own actions and we should tread very carefully when imposing change. Ideologues who are 100% certain in their own righteousness are idiots and should be treated as such. In positions of power, they are dangerous.

dr.fuzzenstein

It's what happenes when politics purely exists to cater to the terminally offended.

Jurgen Klopp

inforfun wrote: »

I have no time for that twat but it might be possible it was just a "joke" from him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z10goVbpLw0

This one doesnt cut off straight after the remark.

I can see ya want to giving him the benefit of the doubt but nah

After he saw the public reaction to what he thought was easy brownie points to further inflate his image he's backpedaling so fast you can hear the tyres screech

TPD

I wonder if he'd "correct" a foreign leader/dignitary in the same way.