All right.
1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I'm not even trying to argue any more, just trying to figure out what you're trying to say, because that academic passive voice does not agree with my reading brain.
This is a contradicting statement -
not even trying to argue- by itself within the next sentences, by making extraordinarily interesting claims, under interesting questions. For the sake of the argument,
I will ignore the possibilities of its meaning behind, and
I will try to explain the situation in a clear way.
I apologise for using that vague writing style, as it is suitable to
my profession, and it is fun, and easy to write in third person passive form. Of course, when it makes the text unclear for the reader, then the joke is not working as intended, and has to be cleared up.
Oglesby referred to you using their; you then responded with a post asking Oglesby to use he/him pronouns for you. That would have been fine;
This is a correct deduction.
however, you wrote in an excessively academic style using passive voice and seemed to say that using they/them pronouns was bad because... it is excessively academic and uses third person passive voice.
Wrong. This is unacceptable.
I never said
{using they/them pronouns was bad because...}, and
I never claimed such a position; utterly unacceptable, because
I agree with the use of pronouns/determiners to address persons by
their preference.
My claim in
my first reply was this:
The author, while the above objection is understood, has to remind that there are many languages spoken in this forum, even though the lingua franca of the medium is english (simple, british, american, gibberish, etc. in whatever form). This can lead to confusing situations, due to the fact that its users' cultural-country background is not monolithic, but a spectrum.
In this,
I said, that
I understand the objection.
My claim was, that such an argument -using
they instead of
he is perfectly ok- may not be applicable and comprehensible, in particular to those that are speaking/writing in english (
or any latin, or any language with gender-distinction in its nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, etc.) but as a foreign language.
As a basis of
my argument,
I gave some comparative examples, that languages with no gender-distinction have no such problems, therefore such a discussion is intrinsically incomprehensible to those foreign language speakers. One can still understand the point, when the cultural aspects and its background are known and experienced; this is
my position;
I understand your point,
I accept it, and
I wrote that
I agree with
you.
In
my mother-language, such distinctions do not exist, therefore the argument is not applicable. The gender-clash and the dominance of the patriarchy, and all of the resulting problems do exist also in
my original culture, as it is a worldwide issue; moreover,
I do know the struggle of humanity for human rights, in this case in the world of english-speakers (after all,
we're all living in amerika) so
I understand your point,
I accept it, and
I wrote that
I agree with
you.
As a self-criticism,
I should not have dragged the argument to such an extent, as it is obviously not clear to the reader, and the fun has perished after seeing the above accusation from the reader. It is a meaningless accusation, after two reply-attempts of explaining. Hopefully, this time it will be much clearer.
From the
same first reply:
Again, while the above objection is well understood, and the correction is well appreciated (the author does not live in a cave), it has to be pointed out that not all cultural aspects of a language is fully comprehensible by its users, and especially the foreign.
In this,
I repeated, that
I understand the objection, and
I appreciate
your correction.
From the
same first reply:
In conclusion, yes, @Eruth, it is perfectly agreed to define a person in a sentence with their instead of his or her or its, when it is required to use a personal pronoun, and when it is requested to do so.
In this,
I repeated, for the third time in the same first reply post, yes,
I agree with
your definition. It is perfectly agreeable to use
they instead of
she/he, when it is requested to do so.
I prefer he for
myself.
After three acknowledgements from
my first reply, it is obvious that
I cannot accept
your false claim, accusing
me saying {
using they/them pronouns was bad}.
2------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
however, you wrote in an excessively academic style using passive voice and seemed to say that using they/them pronouns was bad because... it is excessively academic and uses third person passive voice.
Wrong.
I claimed that, because
I am (
well, have been; thanks to this reply, not this time. This is the second time I have written directly from first person) writing in third person passive voice, it can be difficult to guess how to address the person that writes, that is,
I. It has nothing to do with the preference of
he or
they.
I already explained this in
my second reply:
Again, the author -filcat- specifically prefers to write in academic style; this saves the necessity of using any personal pronoun, possessive or adjective. Reminded the responder -Oglesby- that to refer the author his instead of their due to this pronoun-free writing format; not that preferring his to their has anything to do with the academic writing style.
3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Or were you saying that we should always write in excessively academic passive third person?
No; and
I cannot accept this irritating attitude.
4------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
Either way, I don't see how academic third person passive voice has anything to do with they/them vs he/him pronouns.
This is a correct deduction.
As explained already, this is the second time in this reply, and the third time with
my second reply:
I claimed that, because
I have been writing in third person passive voice, it can be difficult to guess how to address the person, that is,
I. It has nothing to do with the preference of
he or
they.
5------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
I replied to that because I though you were discouraging the use of singular 'they',
Wrong thought.
Again: As a self-criticism,
I should not have dragged the argument to such an extent, as it is obviously not clear to the reader, and the fun has perished after seeing the above accusation from the reader. It is a meaningless accusation, after two reply-attempts of explaining. Hopefully, this time it will be much clearer.
6------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
I agree with
you.
Apologies to all others, and
@GChapman, for mutilating the thread with this reply, and all the trouble I caused.
BACK TO THE TOPIC
Mongol_empire_1820 (probably for the tenth time, but it is always fun)
- Declared independence, destroyed oirats - Check
- Conquered, made tributares, vassalised china, korea, manchuria, india, indochina, central asia, persia, caucasus - Check
- Cut the russian colonies in siberia - Check
- Conquered kyushu, hokkaido (coal provinces); made japan tributary - Check
- Deliberately triggered 2 coalitions of including malwa (180k), the ottos (400k), and destroyed the punitive league - Check
- Conquered russia, ruthenia; made russia tributary (625 pp; too bad it is capped at 100) - Check
- 3 showdowns with the ottos (they jumped to ~700k in the third time), conquered pontic steppes, iraq, syria, armenia - Check
This was enormous fun. Unfortunately it is 1820; it is beyond finished, after the run was already saturated to player-win at around 1650.
There is the age-old issue of empty siberia, that has to be filled with the player's self-involvement through expansion ideas but that is another topic (as the eighth with only the first idea is enough; mongol empire is one of the unique-tags that can finish the run with only 7 idea sets, instead of 8).
The problem is, it is really tedious to conquer other large tags, to select 20 or more provinces in the peace deal, raze them one-by-one; it would do wonders if there was a fully annex button (along with raze all; now that is day-dreaming).
@GChapman: You were absolutely right; was able to conquer hokkaido island from japan while all the provinces were still terra incognita. Apparently it was some other reason that confused the author to think that it would not be possible.
Standard mongol empire run; karakorum as only 36 dev, no need for more, as there are hundreds of such cities, even after razing. Left the ottos alone for a long time for possible showdowns; the code did not disappoint, it took quantity and went berserk. Left ava alone; too much time consuming due to allies. Lost the borjigin line due to horrible design of the horde succession. There is a rare tirhut surviving by the destruction of india due to the player, then it went great power level. There is also a rare ruthenia, popped-up completely by the code without player interference.
Edit: Deleted the citation-asterisk.
