> What I do have a problem with, is why you seem to think that it's
> okay for someone to rankle you with misspeled words, but it _is_
> for you to rankle them the same way.
...when you misspell my name you are making an intentional attempt to
redefine my person. In this forum we are nothing but the symbols we
use to represent ourselves, the choice and construction of those
symbols conveys information about the person using the symbol.
[that's what symbols DO].
...hermit chooses to be called hermit, amir chooses Tinker, I choose -psypher, all of which tells you atuff about us. ...when I use the spelling 'humyn' as opposed to the traditional 'human' [there's no right or wrong with symbolic construction] I am doing so to indicate that the traditional symbol has implications that do not fit the constructs I wish to discuss. We've gone over this before so I'll spare everyone the etymological digressions, but the traditional spelling is based on a view of the species that gives prominence to one segment of it - the [man] at the end of 'human' and 'woman' is not just a notice of phoenetic similarity, it's a deliberate placement which refers both those terms to the primacy of the man in sociopolitical organization.
...I don't think it's at all an extreme position to assert that the traditional patriarchy is both unnecessary harmful and exclusionary. I don't have any expectation that one person or a small group of persons performing graphical alterations on text symbols is going to alter anyones relation to anyone else. What I do hope is that my alteration will be viewed as odd [or even annoying] and that will lead - as it has - to a discussion of some sort about how the symbols we use both reflect and define the reality we live in.
Why is that? Objections have
...I think I answered this above, but let me try to make sure. My
alteration is a modification of a traditional symbol with
exclusionary context built in to it. It is not a personal attack on
any person or persons.
> been raised before about the spelling, but you continued to use it.
...and while I conceed that the term "attack" is misapplied [but for lack of a better word...] your alteration is directed at my person, at my individual identity, which places it in a different class of actions.
...I think I answered this above, but let me try to make sure. My alteration is a modification of a traditional symbol with exclusionary context built in to it. It is not a personal attack on any person or persons.
> Wouldn't you call that "deliberate baiting"?
...I suppose I would have to, wouldn't I.
I understand you think
> you are operating from from a platform of social justice. But what
> makes you think I'm not? Or did this possibility occur to you at
...it did not. I'm interested, are you? how so?
> Did you stop to wonder _why_ I found it insulting, or did you just
> assume that your moral crusade trumps my moral indignation?
...it's not a moral crusade. While it is my hope that my modification will prompt dialogue, this is neither necessary or sufficient reason for my actions. When I construct statemtents I do the best i can, given the knowledge I have, to make sure the symbols used represent the ideas intended. Inevitably my results are incomplete, my knowledge is not comprehensive. However, the traditional spelling does not allow me to make the sort of statements I need to construct to hold my meaning. Especially because this medium of exchange is exclusively text-based I can't count on other avenues of information exchange [voice tonality, gesture, demeanour etc.] to shade and weight my statements, I must rely the tools at hand.
> Listen, we can play the old schoolground-tit-for-tat
> I'm-not-going-to-listen-to-you-either game if you like, it's no skin
> off my nose; I've seen 'em come and go for decades on this type of
> forum. But if instead, you'd like to get past this, and maybe even
> learn something (I acknowledge the possibility that you really don't
> know the source and wider historical significance of the terms
...that's entirely possible, and I'm always interested in learning something.
, then you might stop you're headlong, blinkered rush down the
> path of righteous social reengineering and ask me why I find it
> insulting (and dangerous, in a culturally insidious kind of way).
...I have the germ of an idea why [possibly more than a germ] but I'd rather actually [metaphorically]hear it from you than jump to conclusions.