Actually on this issue, I think, if any Agoran once greater inclusion without excluding others, then we must abide by that wish and try our best to be inclusive to the degree requested. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 29, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 06/29/2017 12:49 PM, CuddleBeam wrote: >> >Spivak is personally important to me. I don't think I've overstated my >> >feelings on this matter in the least. >> >> OK. It's alright to have that. > I don't need your approval. >> I'm just curious how that is compatible with what you've stated here: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg36544.html >> >> >Inclusivity: Language is part of culture and identity, and I'm not >> >comfortable codifying Agora's >> >culture to be so exclusive. We already have measures against ambiguity that >> >don't disavow entire >> >tongues. >> >> Wouldn't enforcing Spivak be making it "exclusive"? Aren't there other >> (potentially culturally-influenced) ways to express yourself? Or are those >> not alright if they don't include Spivak? > > I wasn't speaking in absolute terms, at some point between 'these words are > prefered' and 'this entire class of communication is the prestige system' you > cross from a difference of degree to a difference of quality (of course, the > line is impossible to really suss out). > > We already have prefered words to some degree. 'Reportor' is defined, but > it's not prohibited to use synonyms, translations, circumlocutions, or > encipherments if other players deem them not ambiguous. But if you constantly > avoided keywords, other players might lobby you to stop. In the same vein, I > don't support punishments for not using Spivak, but I'm still going to lobby > for its usage. > > Broader terms: Culture and individuality is negotiated between individuals. > When communicating with others, especially when communiating _about_ them, > there needs to be compromise to please both sides. Speak only how you prefer, > and you risk hurting them. Speak only how they prefer, and you risk hurting > yourself. > > And the personal note: I'm a single Agoran, so my opinion is ultimately my > own. But Spivak represents inclusivity to me, by circumventing English's need > to either pre-categorize people, or have them explicitly categorize > themselves. Symbolically, losing that system feels like a loss of an ideal.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
