Amusing Dilbert Strip (not recent)

[Michael Trew]

Perhaps I'm starting trouble, but I couldn't help but to chuckle when I
came across this today on a different newsgroup:

https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-7-21

[Quinn C]

* Michael Trew:

> Perhaps I'm starting trouble, but I couldn't help but to chuckle when I
> came across this today on a different newsgroup:
>
> https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-7-21

That kind of thing is why I don't feel like reading Dilbert any more. Is
Scott becoming an out-of-touch old man (at just 8 years older than me)?

--
Please stop treating gender as though it were a set menu.
Gender is an a la carte arrangement.
-- S. Bear Bergman, The Field Guide to Transmasculine Creatures

[Timothy Chow]

On 10/31/2021 12:46 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Michael Trew:
>
>> Perhaps I'm starting trouble, but I couldn't help but to chuckle when I
>> came across this today on a different newsgroup:
>>
>> https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-7-21
>
> That kind of thing is why I don't feel like reading Dilbert any more. Is
> Scott becoming an out-of-touch old man (at just 8 years older than me)?

Not out of touch, just flirting with political-cartoon territory.

In the old days, I recall that many newspapers tried to distinguish
between political cartoons and non-political comics, and "Doonesbury"
created headaches for many editors. I wonder if any newspapers still
worry about that distinction, and have decided that "Dilbert" has
crossed the line?

---
Tim Chow

[Quinn C]

* Timothy Chow:

> On 10/31/2021 12:46 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Michael Trew:
>>
>>> Perhaps I'm starting trouble, but I couldn't help but to chuckle when I
>>> came across this today on a different newsgroup:
>>>
>>> https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-7-21
>>
>> That kind of thing is why I don't feel like reading Dilbert any more. Is
>> Scott becoming an out-of-touch old man (at just 8 years older than me)?
>
> Not out of touch, just flirting with political-cartoon territory.

I have no issue with that, but he comes down on the wrong side (of
history) - not just judging from that one strip, but a few this summer.

The people for whom asking for pronouns is the end of civilization now
are the ones who saw it coming when women started wearing pants.

--
New Zealand - or as we call it in South Africa: New Zedland ...
-- Trevor Noah

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <sln7ql$k3t$1...@dont-email.me>,

Walt Kelly caused headaches long before Doonesbury.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 19:33:40 -0400, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

> The people for whom asking for pronouns is the end of civilization now
> are the ones who saw it coming when women started wearing pants.

Pfft.

Today I said "John wrote that they will come home for Christmas."

The pronoun fanatics have made that sentence ambiguous -- you have to
know John to know that he said "we will come home".

An attack on communication is an attack on civilization -- we are
still suffering from singular "you".

And I really, really don't like being a member of two protected
classes. Creating new protected classes is not an advance in
civilization.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Mopoleum]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote

> An attack on communication is an attack on civilization -- we are
> still suffering from singular "you".

Funnily enough, common usage of nongendered singular "they" predates the
introduction of the word "civilization" by centuries.

They were using they to "attack civilization" -- whatever that means --
before "civilization" even existed.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 00:50:23 -0000 (UTC), Mopoleum
<mopo...@mopo.leum.com> wrote:

> They were using they to "attack civilization" -- whatever that means --
> before "civilization" even existed.

It's mandating singular they at gunpoint that is undermining

[Quinn C]

* Joy Beeson:

> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 19:33:40 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>> The people for whom asking for pronouns is the end of civilization now
>> are the ones who saw it coming when women started wearing pants.
>
> Pfft.
>
> Today I said "John wrote that they will come home for Christmas."
>
> The pronoun fanatics have made that sentence ambiguous -- you have to
> know John to know that he said "we will come home".
>
> An attack on communication is an attack on civilization -- we are
> still suffering from singular "you".

Ha - this hardly registers as a blip on my misunderstand-o-meter.

Do you know John? Does the person you were talking to? Yes? Then you're
fine.

And it's not even so much that context disambiguates language. It is -
insight I owe to linguist Charles F. Hockett - that we express in
language what isn't already clear in the situation. No need to state the
obvious.

So if it had been necessary, you'd have said "the two of them will come
home". It's not really hard.

I haven't shared this in a long time, but this is something I started
observing in elementary school: those two over there seem to be in a big
argument, but really, all it is is that this one is using word X to mean
A, and that one uses X to mean B. It's all about nothing.

Happens all the time. One more ambiguous pronoun amps it up by what?
0.02%?

> And I really, really don't like being a member of two protected
> classes. Creating new protected classes is not an advance in
> civilization.

What, like (30-something) Titus Andromedon on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt:
"Now I'm black, gay *and* old? I won't even know which box to check!"
(quoting from memory)

--
Es wurde versucht, auf Ihr Konto von einem neuen verbinden Computer.
-- SPAMPOESIE

[Mopoleum]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 00:50:23 -0000 (UTC), Mopoleum
>

>> They were using they to "attack civilization" -- whatever that means
--
>> before "civilization" even existed.
>
> It's mandating singular they at gunpoint that is undermining
> civilization.

Gunpoint? I am endlessly astonished by the panic of language police to
justify their own crackdowns. I noticed that you cut the historical
reference because your point rests on being anti-historical -- the
adoption literally wasn't at gunpoint then, and it's not now.

You're talking about a phenomenon that existed before Modern English
existed, and may well have been in use by the Vangarian Guard when they
were protecting the Paleologue Emperors in the Blachernae Palace in
Constantinople not long after they gained breathing room due to the
conquest of the Seljuk Dynasty by the Hulegu Ulus.

Anti-history is one of the critical foundational piles of this panic,
without which the entire enterprise will teeter like a poorly engineered
San Francisco skyscraper. And of course attacking history -- it makes
conservatives feelings hurt -- means attacking one of the key points of
western thinking that conservatives lie about defending.

You're being manipulated by people who have at least a passing
familiarity with the facts, but lie about them to you. Don't let them do
this to you.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 08:51:38 -0400, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

> Happens all the time. One more ambiguous pronoun amps it up by what?
> 0.02%?

It finally got to be Usenet time before bedtime, I found this thread,
and then I asked myself: "Is hand-crafting replies to someone who
sees corrupting commication lines as harmless a good use of my limited
time?"

So I hared off to read "Agnes" and "Frazz".

And alt.usage.english, when I finished the comics, but I didn't ask
whether the titles of comic strips should have quotation marks. Seemed
necessary in this instance to avoid implying that there is a strip
called "Agnes and Frazz".

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii

joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

The above message is a Usenet post.

[Quinn C]

* Joy Beeson:

> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 08:51:38 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>> Happens all the time. One more ambiguous pronoun amps it up by what?
>> 0.02%?
>
> It finally got to be Usenet time before bedtime, I found this thread,
> and then I asked myself: "Is hand-crafting replies to someone who
> sees corrupting commication lines as harmless a good use of my limited
> time?"

You do you. I'll just caution you not to judge the practicability of a
solution when it's still new and unfamiliar.

--
Mein Name ist Dr. Wendy Watt ein Legitime Seriöse Geld Lender.
-- SPAMPOESIE