Berkeley killing renews debate over gender pronouns - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Plattack;52020248]*They Just because someone committed a crime doesn't invalidate their gender identity.[/QUOTE] The crime didn't invalidate their gender identity. Identifying themselves as a third gender did. :v:

Mostly interested to see what this was all about, I mean surely he didn't kill a gradeschool teacher over a pronoun disagreement? The lawn sign?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52020597]They* wasn't even thinking about that so my mistake. Though [i]they[/i] killed a person with no respect and what I just said doesn't even sound intelligible cause now it sounds like I am referring to multiple people.[/QUOTE] They doesn't have to refer to multiple people, that's a common misconception. [QUOTE]they /T͟Hā/ pronoun pronoun: they 1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. "the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted" people in general. "the rest, as they say, is history" informal a group of people in authority regarded collectively. "they cut my water off" 2. used to refer to a person of unspecified gender. "ask someone if they could help"[/QUOTE] see def 2

[QUOTE=jimbobjoe1234;52020500]Why should we validate this person? [I]They[/I] murdered an innocent human being so why should [I]they[/I] get treated with respect when [I]they [/I]can't even respect human life? I'm all for different gender pronouns or whatever it is people feel like labeling themselves as, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna respect the wishes of a killer.[/QUOTE] if you view gender pronouns as some kind of privilege you grant from on high instead of a matter of basic humanity then you're missing the point. reminds me of when chelsea manning transitioned people with this opinion came out of the woodwork.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52020439]Maybe that would be true if he wasn't paying for such an expensive university just to get a degree that won't help him at all whilst putting him in deep debt, assuming he's not already wealthy. One of the generally Conservative points I agree with is that people shouldn't spend tens of thousands to major in some social or art degree and then complain that they're deep in debt and struggling financially. Then they just end up without their own money and possibly costing the state money from welfare for the debt they voluntarily took on, knowing that it wouldn't pay off in any substantial fashion.[/QUOTE] Invalidating social science or art degrees isnt a conservative standpoint, its a retarded standpoint that just so happens to be held by some portion of conservatives (many lefties too to be clear). We live in an incredibly diverse time and our economy is rapidly changing, there are innumerable useful applications for "____ studies" IF people learn actual skills and put them to good use. The fact that you or other cant conceive of how they could be useful means youve either not investigated the possibilities or have a poor imagination. Not every degree is as useful as others, and theyre not always economically valued as they could be but to blanket insult or invalidate a whole range of academic studies pretty ignorant. Especially for something Latin america studies holy shit thats a major region of the world and if you learn your shit well that could be a great in with huge economic viability. It all depends on the quality of the education and the talent of the students, not some blanket assumption that their degree is worth shit.

I mean I wouldn't start calling a black dude racial slurs because they killed somebody. No reason why that principle wouldn't apply here. It's acknowledging a basic level of someones humanity pretty much.

I still have yet to see how this person's gender identity caused them to kill this person in any fashion other than the title being blatantly sensationalist

[QUOTE=1239the;52020661]if you view gender pronouns as some kind of privilege you grant from on high instead of a matter of basic humanity then you're missing the point. reminds me of when chelsea manning transitioned people with this opinion came out of the woodwork.[/QUOTE] I'm not gonna respect someone that murders an innocent person. Like I said people can refer to themselves however they want, just don't expect me to sympathize with a psychotic killer.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;52020666]Invalidating social science or art degrees isnt a conservative standpoint, its a retarded standpoint that just so happens to be held by some portion of conservatives (many lefties too to be clear). We live in an incredibly diverse time and our economy is rapidly changing, there are innumerable useful applications for "____ studies" IF people learn actual skills and put them to good use. The fact that you or other cant conceive of how they could be useful means youve either not investigated the possibilities or have a poor imagination. Not every degree is as useful as others, and theyre not always economically valued as they could be but to blanket insult or invalidate a whole range of academic studies pretty ignorant. Especially for something Latin america studies holy shit thats a major region of the world and if you learn your shit well that could be a great in with huge economic viability. It all depends on the quality of the education and the talent of the students, not some blanket assumption that their degree is worth shit.[/QUOTE] You're free to think that, and I'm free to think pursuing education you cannot afford and will not pay off is a stupid idea. If you can afford it, go for it. If you cannot afford it but it will pay itself off, go for it. If you cannot afford it and it won't pay off, it's a bad investment.

[QUOTE=Elspin;52020644]They doesn't have to refer to multiple people, that's a common misconception. see def 2[/QUOTE] I understand that and hence why I am okay with using the term as such, but still sounds off in that particular sentence and i'm not one for abnormal/forced uses of language in general. I mean really I don't mind saying they here and I will give them the respect of it, even though they don't deserve it imo. They could call themselves xir/zhe/xen or whatever and I would still think their insistence of this language shouldn't be enforced. But I don't even think what I just said sounds intelligible in general using they/their/them in such a way to describe this person.

[QUOTE=Elspin;52020644]They doesn't have to refer to multiple people, that's a common misconception. see def 2[/QUOTE] Welllll, technically, yes and no. Language is pretty amorphous and it depends on what authority you look to. But singular they has a long history and is growing in usage quite a bit, and if we're acting descriptively, it seeps into quite a few people's speech whether they realize it or not. "They" kind of frustrates me though because it can introduce ambiguity (as tudd showed) but it's not like this language isn't already chock full of that shit. But, people have been trying to get gender-neutral pronouns in for hundreds of years (yes, it's not a tumblr thing) and none have succeeded so "they" is probably going to win and stay. My advice to make the best of it is to have relevant antecedents present if possible.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52020719]I understand that and hence why I am okay with using the term as such, but still sounds off in that particular sentence and i'm not one for abnormal/forced uses of language in general. I mean really I don't mind saying they here and I will give them the respect of it, even though they don't deserve it imo. They could call themselves xir/zhe/xen or whatever and I would still think their insistence of this language shouldn't be enforced. But I don't even think what I just said sounds intelligible in general using they/their/them in such a way to describe this person.[/QUOTE] What I'm trying to explain is it's not abnormal/forced, it's pretty basic and has existed long before tumblr was a website, and in some sentences it's beyond abnormal but absolutely necessary to use it to refer to a singular person. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52020752]Welllll, technically, yes and no. Language is pretty amorphous and it depends on what authority you look to. But singular they has a long history and is growing in usage quite a bit, and if we're acting descriptively, it seeps into quite a few people's speech whether they realize it or not. "They" kind of frustrates me though because it can introduce ambiguity (as tudd showed) but it's not like this language isn't already chock full of that shit. But, people have been trying to get gender-neutral pronouns in for hundreds of years (yes, it's not a tumblr thing) and none have succeeded so "they" is probably going to win and stay. My advice to make the best of it is to have relevant antecedents present if possible.[/QUOTE] I'm confused on why you simultaneously admit that it's been a thing for hundred of years and also act like it's something on the fringe of what's acceptable to do. There isn't really any debate AFAIK, they to refer to a single person of an unspecified gender is not only accepted but a necessity in some scenarios.

[QUOTE=Elspin;52020776] I'm confused on why you simultaneously admit that it's been a thing for hundred of years and also act like it's something on the fringe of what's acceptable to do. There isn't really any debate AFAIK, they to refer to a single person of an unspecified gender is not only accepted but a necessity in some scenarios.[/QUOTE] It wasn't always acceptable and proper, there were periods where the rules and standards flat out said "no, you can't do this" and schools taught against it. And other times where it was very common and accepted. It's more just to say that this isn't a phenomenon we should be worried about, because language changes and we've gone through these things many times. In this case, how people describe and express gender has changed, necessitating pronoun standards to change as well.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52020139] ?? Please Elaborate[/QUOTE] Berkeley has a issue with crazy people, mentally ill or drug educed, among the homeless. Every time I go there I come across at least one person arguing with themselves loud enough for the whole block to hear. Though observation alone and comparing to what I know about the homeless in my area, being homeless increase your risk to assault. Having some issue with mental stability can also increase their risk of walking into or creating a violent situation. No I can't accept only 2 murders actually happened.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52020696]I mean, as long as you can make money from your training, I don't see a point in NOT pursuing your passions. It's the people who go get a liberal arts degree and then end up working at mcdonalds while bitching about how they can't get a job with their liberal arts degree that makes everyone not pursuing a STEM field look bad. By all means, pursue your passions.. but for the love of god have a plan.. and a back up, and a back up of your back up. If you're working your way through school, and you're not already formulating a plan.. you're doing it completely and utterly wrong.[/QUOTE] Yes I agree absolutely, we need a hell of a lot more sensibility and career preparation, and this would be especially necessary if every other college was kid was getting a bee-whispering degree or BA in shitposting, but when it comes to degrees that are conceivably useful (like the aforementioned Latin Studies degree) the fact that underemployment exists comes down to a few factors including job diversity across industries and the economy as a whole, quality of education offered on a societal level, the general value of degrees as well as many others. The question being, is a PhD. graduate working at mcdonalds more a function of their lack of individual worth, the worth of their degree, or a failure on part of the economy to recognize the value of a field of study? Id suggest there isnt a simple answer, and i question those who cry red herring and complain about a supposed epidemic of (usually targetted at millenials) worthless degrees rather than a boogeyman constructed to insult this generation or liberals for not blindly getting STEM degrees because they were told so.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;52020831]Yes I agree absolutely, we need a hell of a lot more sensibility and career preparation, and this would be especially necessary if every other college was kid was getting a bee-whispering degree or BA in shitposting, but when it comes to degrees that are conceivably useful (like the aforementioned Latin Studies degree) the fact that underemployment exists comes down to a few factors including job diversity across industries and the economy as a whole, quality of education offered on a societal level, the general value of degrees as well as many others. The question being, is a PhD. graduate working at mcdonalds more a function of their lack of individual worth, the worth of their degree, or a failure on part of the economy to recognize the value of a field of study? Id suggest there isnt a simple answer, and i question those who cry red herring and complain about a supposed epidemic of (usually targetted at millenials) worthless degrees rather than a boogeyman constructed to insult this generation or liberals for not blindly getting STEM degrees because they were told so.[/QUOTE] even stem degrees are dropping in value because so many people are getting them. i personally think too many people are going to college in general.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52020597]They* wasn't even thinking about that so my mistake. Though [I]they[/I] killed a person with no respect and what I just said doesn't even sound intelligible cause now it sounds like I am referring to multiple people.[/QUOTE] "They" can be used as a singular pronoun when referring to a person of indeterminate gender. EDIT: Ninja'd but my point still stands. Just because you're not used to it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate use.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;52020252]The fuck is wrong with studying the culture, history, language, and politics of an entire, massive region of the earth?[/QUOTE] Sorry for not coming back to this sooner, most of the other people already expressed the majority of what I would've said anyways though. I was generally curious what Pablo intended to do with such a degree, like what specific jobs they were hoping for that would be particularly suited to. I mean it almost seems like they were just going for an easy meme degree imo, I have no problem with people being interested in whatever they want I just don't know why you'd go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to pursue that interest however when it's likely that you could easily get a far better, far fatter paycheck with another degree and then use the money and leisure you get from that to pursue your interests in your off time, travel around all the places you wanted to visit during your vacations and the like. And no, I don't think all degrees are equal, that doesn't make any sense. I think a lot of people go into degrees because they sound fun but have no idea what relevant employment they might be able to get in the field and fumble around afterwards because they believed that degree = employment. Degrees are an investment, not only in the massive debt that can be incurred, but also in the time spent out of the work place or training for other work that was missed to pursue it. If Pablo actually got a decent job suited specifically to that degree when he got out all the power to him, that'd have been great, I just genuinely doubt the job market would pay out on that investment nearly as well as something else they might have liked just as much could've. And considering that Pablo's time in Berkeley probably earned them a decade or more in prison, I don't think doubting their long-term decision making is a stretch.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;52021955]I just don't know why you'd go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to pursue that interest however when it's likely that you could easily get a far better, far fatter paycheck with another degree and then use the money and leisure you get from that to pursue your interests in your off time, travel around all the places you wanted to visit during your vacations and the like.[/QUOTE] some people want to work with something they enjoy instead of spending 90% of their time doing something they dislike just for the vacations

[QUOTE=1239the;52020661]if you view gender pronouns as some kind of privilege you grant from on high instead of a matter of basic humanity then you're missing the point. reminds me of when chelsea manning transitioned people with this opinion came out of the woodwork.[/QUOTE] except that chelsea had an actual gender... I'm not entirely convinced there's a need for anything other than male and female(Except for maybe intersex people???). All it seems like to me is arbitrarily defined abstract concepts that don't really apply to anything objective other than the fact that they're not extremely masculine or feminine. Seriously, I urge you to go look at some of the proposed/incorporated "genders" that really don't make any sense.

[QUOTE=Eric95;52022034]some people want to work with something they enjoy instead of spending 90% of their time doing something they dislike just for the vacations[/QUOTE] The majority of jobs fall into general categories (like customer service, tech, office work, etc.). Any job within that category has more similarities than differences, and the differences depend more on the boss and/or company than the actual line of work. My point is that you can find a job you "like" with almost any degree. (I put the work 'like' in quotes because almost no one likes their job, even if it's in a field they thought they would like).

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52021223]So you are saying there is a conspiracy to hide the murders? You know murders are really hard to cover up right? A person ceases to live.[/QUOTE] no, that's absurd, they're just not being reported or reported as intentional homicide and when one's homeless it's hard to know if they are alive or dead when they don't check in at a shelter. Just two last year is either a miracle or a failure.

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;52019961]They still are.[/QUOTE] This definitely hasn't been my experience. People get shot down the second that they go against the common viewpoint and they're almost never shot down with a logical argument.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52020752]Welllll, technically, yes and no. Language is pretty amorphous and it depends on what authority you look to. But singular they has a long history and is growing in usage quite a bit, and if we're acting descriptively, it seeps into quite a few people's speech whether they realize it or not. "They" kind of frustrates me though because it can introduce ambiguity (as tudd showed) but it's not like this language isn't already chock full of that shit. But, people have been trying to get gender-neutral pronouns in for hundreds of years (yes, it's not a tumblr thing) and none have succeeded so "they" is probably going to win and stay. My advice to make the best of it is to have relevant antecedents present if possible.[/QUOTE] You really summed up why the "anti-they" argument is just silly. The general population isn't at all willing to play along with people insisting that they be called new, invented pronouns like "xe" and so on - and I totally understand why. It's jarring - I know someone who tried to insist on using invented pronouns for a while and eventually [I]they[/I] just gave up and switched to "they" because people accepted that more easily. See what I did in that last sentence? I used the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they"]singular they[/URL]. It's existed since the 14th century and has never implied male or female. If you use a gender-neutral term, like "someone" or "a person," and then want to refer back to it, you do so with the singular they. This can be seen in literature from the 1600s and earlier. If you say "Someone does X, and then they do Y," you're using "they" to refer back to the gender-neutral "someone." And nobody would see anything unusual about that usage. People are annoyed by "they" being used as a [I]personal[/I] pronoun instead of a non-personal one, like "it." But, in English, it's by far the best word to use as a gender-neutral personal pronoun. It's been used for hundreds of years as a gender-neutral pronoun, and it fits very naturally where "he" or "she" would otherwise be used. He went outside. She went outside. They went outside. There's a bit of ambiguity since "they" also functions as a plural, which is a fair criticism. But then you consider that the plural of "you" is also "you," and that argument doesn't really hold water. [editline]28th March 2017[/editline] The Wikipedia article highlights why "he" as a generic non-gendered pronoun (as often used in the 1900s) can be as ambiguous and misleading as "they" with this quote: "The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair or pulls on his panty-hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day." You read that and envision a man putting on panty-hose to get ready for work, which clearly wasn't the intent from referred "the average American." Replace it with "they," and you get this: "The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As they shave or blow-dry their hair or pull on their panty-hose, they are easing themselves by small stages into the demands of the day." Which one is more ambiguous? In the first, "he" refers to gender-neutral "average American" and fucks up how you read the entire sentence. In the second, "they" properly refers back to the gender-neutral term used earlier, and it reads correctly. Expanding that to personal pronouns is so unbelievably benign. The [I]only[/I] reason I've ever seen anyone oppose using "they" as a gender-neutral personal pronoun is transphobia.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52020861]even stem degrees are dropping in value because so many people are getting them. i personally think too many people are going to college in general.[/QUOTE] I also agree, there are so many jobs that don't need a college degree, but the problem is that they're the jobs that require hard unpleasant work like plumbing and Mechanical work.

[QUOTE=Ithon;52019972]Berkeley is filled with so many crazy people (I mean literally), I find it sickening that only "reported just two homicides last year".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ithon;52020830]Berkeley has a issue with crazy people, mentally ill or drug educed, among the homeless. Every time I go there I come across at least one person arguing with themselves loud enough for the whole block to hear. Though observation alone and comparing to what I know about the homeless in my area, being homeless increase your risk to assault. Having some issue with mental stability can also increase their risk of walking into or creating a violent situation. No I can't accept only 2 murders actually happened.[/QUOTE] These claims are over-exaggerated, don't you think? I don't think for a city that's ranked 4th in population in Alameda County is exactly a place where you wouldn't expect at least one homeless person with mental issues speaking to themselves. To say Berkeley is 'filled' with 'crazy people' is a bit sensational when you look at the last recorded statistic of homeless people here. We have an issue with mental stability and UC Berkeley has a 'PC' problem, not to say social justice and 'political correctness' is bad, I just think many colleges are simply doing it wrong. Also keep in mind that majority (and honestly most in general) of Berkeley's crimes are just robberies, it's 100% believable that Berkely had 2 murders, why do you believe otherwise? You hear more about robberies than murder here in general. Hell, same even applies to Oakland, 2016 saw dropped numbers in murder for Oakland. [QUOTE=Tudd;52020597]They* wasn't even thinking about that so my mistake.[/QUOTE] *They weren't

Wow [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Judas;52020268]hmmm almost like there are people on facepunch and in the media that push propaganda with an extremely clear agenda and selectivley ignore facts to keep their narrative going[/QUOTE] Yeah. You're one of 'em.