They have, let’s not call it a union to not upset people, but let’s say a collective agreement that they won’t work for capital. They will only work for other lawyers. So there’s no Walmart Law or other enterprise selling legal services for cheap.
I'm trying to parse the idea of "a collective agreement" but can't fully wrap my head around how that would work.
It seems to me more like the lack of a "Walmart Law" is a result of e.g. lack of economies of scale and other economic structure, rather than some collective agreement. (If it was profitable to break out of that agreement and start a "Walmart Law", it seems we'd see that happen pretty quickly?)
But if you know more about this and I'm off the mark I'd love to learn
3 seconds would not matter to me. As it is, latencies are much higher and afford time for my family group chat (WhatsApp) to "spoil" events that I have not yet seen. I don't want to ignore the chat. :(
Have you considered that you are overly sensitive to this, and that you might have been conditioned to be by the manufactured controversy currently being stoked by the right? There are exactly two uses of the word "they" as a pronoun, both in regard to Alon Levy, who presumably prefers this pronoun. It's a big world out there - learn to live with it.
Fantastic response -- D.C.'s flagged initial comment reads as someone who tries to use a blinkered interpretation of language to avoid respecting non-binary peoples' pronouns, while failing to acknowledge the historical use of singular 'they.'
The article features frequent usage of Alon's name, to avoid using they/then as much, just as you would with he/she.
The briefest of searches for Alon's name shows their Twitter profile[1] with "(they/them)" as part of their account name -- which also includes their Mastodon profile[2], itself showing a pronoun box listing "They/them."
It's a shame someone so educated appears to be getting riled up over something so small and trivial -- respecting Alon's pronouns neither harms anyone, nor makes the article any more difficult to read.
"Nonbinary" [sic] people should not be doing "cultural appropriation" of the plural pronouns the rest of us know; if they insist on not being referred to as "he" or "she," then they should come up with their own.
That's literally not what cultural appropriation is.
The fact that you try and use that term when you clearly don't even know the definition, shows you to be nothing more than ignorant and bigoted. Good job.
I'm an intellectual-property lawyer; I'm well aware of what "cultural appropriation" supposedly is — and what it isn't.
(That's why I put the term in quotes. In part, it's to tweak the noses of people who rail against something that the law doesn't recognize as "a thing." What those folks call "cultural appropriation," the law calls "laudably propagating good ideas and practices, subject to any applicable restrictions that have been duly enacted into law.")
Apparently not, since you think that "plural pronouns" are a cultural element that can be appropriated, which isn't the case when aforementioned pronoun has centuries-old singular usage -- notwithstanding the significantly greater usage and acceptance in modern times -- with the extreme minority being the bigots who attempt to deny both grammatical and historical fact, and language evolution -- because of their own bigoted, hateful views.
Being an IP lawyer won't win you any points, especially when you're ignorantly refusing basic facts of language even with empirical evidence.
Hard no on that one — just because someone declares "I have no gender" doesn't make it so, any more than if I were to declare that I have no eye color.
> is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant!
Agreed — but in formal writing, confusing readers by appropriating the plural is not the way to fix it.
"Hard no" because of your personal beliefs and bigotry, rather than fact.
Gender is a social construct, and people are free do identify as they please. If someone decides they don't identify as binary male or female, that's their choice. It doesn't mean they declare "I have no gender," it means they don't declare to be "male" or "female."
The fact that you foolishly and arrogantly try to equate an irrefutable, immutable physical attribute like iris pigmentation, with something as ill-defined, fluid, and personal as gender, shows you're neither engaging in good faith, nor able to get past your own bigotry to even make an intelligent argument.
Once again, you're the only one being confused here, so the fake outrage and trumped-up claims of confused readership don't fly.
Really glad your original post has been flagged, it was incredibly toxic. Becoming so irritated that you "quit reading after a couple of paragraphs" suggests you either struggle to keep up when there isn't a defined he/she pronoun, or that you take some issue with they/them pronouns specifically.
Modern readers are taught from childhood that gender isn't binary, and that singular 'they' is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to someone, and has the historical precedent to back it up.
It's confusing you as a reader, but the arbitrary claim that it confuses "the reader" is a baseless and inaccurate one. It's 2022 D.C., contemporary usage of singular 'they' isn't rare or unheard of in any way, and its frequent usage without complaint -- except from certain groups who take umbrage with non-cisgender peoples' existence, of course.
Surely a fellow as learned as yourself should be able to grasp the concept of singular they? -- it's been around for centuries... The fact that you're demanding a writer invents and starts using a new gender-neutral pronoun is ridiculous.
Firstly, singular 'they' is perfectly suited to this purpose, and has been used historically without an issue. Secondly, if you can't grasp the concept of singular they, you're clearly not going to be any less antagonistic about a newly-created alternative. Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles -- FYI, the gender-neutral title "Mx." has been adopted for many years, but (a) isn't used by every non-binary or gender-non-conforming person, and (b) is a title, not a pronoun -- so cannot be used interchangeably as such.
Since the author of the article uses they/them pronouns, your claimed solution of "he or she" wouldn't apply. At all.
Perhaps some reading could go some way to alleviating your irritation?
If you'd like to read a bit more about its usage for both non-binary people, and to refer to people of unknown or unspecified gender -- as well as style guides -- there's always the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
It's quite telling that you complain of people "...demanding that the rest of us go along with their throwing sand in the gears of the reading process" when (a) singular they isn't new, and has been widely adopted for these purposes -- in this case to refer to the non-binary author of the piece, and (b) you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct.
There are much bigger things to worry about than getting yourself worked up over someone's choice of pronoun, and your apparent refusal to respect that.
Alon Levy (the author)'s work is rather good. It's a shame you abandoned reading their article because of your own bigoted and blinkered views about language.
> Modern readers are taught from childhood that gender isn't binary
Is that a fact? Repeating another comment I made on this thread: If we take "gender" as meaning "biological sex," then it IS binary;* I can no more declare, "I have no gender" than "I have no eye color" or "I can fly by willing myself to defy gravity."
* Modulo those exceedingly-rare people who are born hermaphrodites
> Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles
Um, no — in my education, I learned about the use of analogies, comparisons, and precedents to illustrate a point. Here, the precedent is the coinage of a new title; there's no reason similar coinage shouldn't happen for a gender-neutral singular pronoun (which I'd be fine with using, BTW).
> you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct.
I'm only partly surprised that — in a forum where so many people complain about subpar software UIs, hard-to-read code, and the like — there are those who think it's perfectly fine to demand that the rest of us accede to "nonbinary" people's confusing language preferences for written communication.
>"If we take "gender" as meaning "biological sex,""
-- but "we" don't, because they are two entirely different words with entirely different meanings. Gender is a social construct. Your supposed arguments are fallacies which fail to even get off the ground.
There is no need to create a new singular gender-neutral pronoun to appease your bitter, bigoted self, when a perfectly adequate one exists, and has both historical and contemporary use. Your refusal to acknowledge or accept history, new or old, does not invalidate grammatically correct usage that you personally disagree with.
Love how you're using scare quotes again -- do you deny those identities existing? -- or, despite the empirical evidence, and the majority of the world having no issue with it, are you just set on being hateful bigoted, and exclusionary?
The only one "confused" by singular 'they' in this context is you, old boy -- everyone else is managing to read the article without getting their proverbial panties in a bunch... so why aren't you?
Nobody "demanded" anything. It's a matter of education, and a matter of respect.
1. You refuse to acknowledge history or even the OED, the principal historical dictionary of the English language.
2. You refuse to educate yourself when your ignorance and bigotry is challenged.
3. You refuse to offer the article's author (or anyone like them) the simple common courtesy and basic respect of acknowledging and respecting their pronouns.
These are simple acts of learning and courtesy, taken by intelligent and reasonable, polite people. The fact that you make baseless accusatory claims of "demanding" when none have been made, just show further that you're engaging in ad hominems and fallacies out of bigotry and hatred, rather than any reasoned point of logic or fact.
Keep cleaning it's "confusing" all you want, but non-binary and gender non-conforming people existed long before you, outnumber those with such blinkered, exclusionary views, and will outlive you. Oh, and that goes for the existence and usage of singular 'they' too ;)
Your immaturity really is quite astounding, Sir. I'm neither "chanting" anything, nor making empty arguments. The fact that you refuse to accept empirical evidence or history isn't my fault, that's your own blinkered view and hatred -- and if you don't like being accused of ignorance and bigotry, perhaps you could try being less ignorant and bigoted.
As for respect, the fact that you're seemingly triggered by the mere concept of offering it to people, shows how little your puerile and vitriolic take matters.
Deflection and fake outrage are the bastions of angry conservatives clutching at the final straws -- then running away while deliberately avoiding the empirical facts of the matter, that you find personally inconvenient.
GP has the typical delusion that language cannot change and that words can only have a singular meaning. Any dictionary will confirm this. There was obviously no ambiguity at they knew immediately what the intent was.
Precisely, it's a transparent attempt to hide bigotry and hate behind (false) claims of grammatical correctness, while deliberately refusing to acknowledge usage of singular 'they' -- which has existed for centuries -- because it inconveniences their hate.
The Super Bowl in 2013 featured an intentional safety. Losing points but running the clock down. The play was predicted by one attendee at the party I was at —- a British gentleman whose introduction to football had been the Madden games.
I was trying to figure out if you meant the SB held for the 2013 season or the SB actually held in 2013 but then I remembered that it happened in both lol
