Compliance rituals began to leak into academic discourse over the last decade and sacralized participation in fields that were previously neutral (like the hard sciences). A funny example is when fields (like climatology or geology) that previously used BP or kya dating began switching *back* to BCE, despite the inconvenience, because it was insufficiently clear that kya was intended as an ideological repudiation of BC/AD date styling.
When my APS subfield national conference (DAMOP) reschedule a meeting just to spite the state legislature for passing a bathroom bill, the act of purchasing a ticket for the new location became a sort of compliance ritual as well. Strong professional gatekeeping message: "Want to get ahead in this field? This is what our world cares about. Keep yourself in line and do the same thing as the rest of us."
Pronouns to masks is a disturbing connecting thought. And this is from being on a vacation?
I don't know what I think about my own proposal, but would appreciate any feedback. Pronouns are a tool of Satan intended for many things, one being the confusion and disordering of language so that it's harder to save folks. Greg Koukl on str.org, said recently that he just noticed in the parable of the sower, the seed on hard ground was received, but not understood. So Greg said, make sure to talk in a way that is understood and he said as an example, he no longer uses the phrase, "to receive Christ" because folks are too biblically illiterate to understand what that means.
So that's what made me think about the Pronouns and that's it's one more hurdle , both emotionally and grammatically, in sharing an understood gospel message.
For example, if I ask a person steeped in the new liturgy if they are perfect like God, like "He" is, then I might be adding static. "What do you mean perfect like He is, how do you know what gender God is?" I get tired even thinking about it.
I do think the real point of many things in our day is to make it more difficult to think clearly. Good benefits from clear thinking. Evil benefits from confused and muddled thinking.
This is fine work, Mr. Shane. For a little while in the 1970 the vernacular, "boss" reemerged briefly as in, "that was boss!" or "that corvette was boss." Sometime we said, "bosso." But we never said, "that was SO boss." The word so came to be abused decades later.
It is important to remember that in past decades, Americans have used language, from what I guess you'd consider more of a right-wing position, to exclude disfavored ideologies. "Red" was apparently a bit of a danger word in the '50s, enough so that the Cincinnati baseball team changed its name from Reds to Redlegs.
Compliance rituals began to leak into academic discourse over the last decade and sacralized participation in fields that were previously neutral (like the hard sciences). A funny example is when fields (like climatology or geology) that previously used BP or kya dating began switching *back* to BCE, despite the inconvenience, because it was insufficiently clear that kya was intended as an ideological repudiation of BC/AD date styling.
When my APS subfield national conference (DAMOP) reschedule a meeting just to spite the state legislature for passing a bathroom bill, the act of purchasing a ticket for the new location became a sort of compliance ritual as well. Strong professional gatekeeping message: "Want to get ahead in this field? This is what our world cares about. Keep yourself in line and do the same thing as the rest of us."
Oy.
Pronouns to masks is a disturbing connecting thought. And this is from being on a vacation?
I don't know what I think about my own proposal, but would appreciate any feedback. Pronouns are a tool of Satan intended for many things, one being the confusion and disordering of language so that it's harder to save folks. Greg Koukl on str.org, said recently that he just noticed in the parable of the sower, the seed on hard ground was received, but not understood. So Greg said, make sure to talk in a way that is understood and he said as an example, he no longer uses the phrase, "to receive Christ" because folks are too biblically illiterate to understand what that means.
So that's what made me think about the Pronouns and that's it's one more hurdle , both emotionally and grammatically, in sharing an understood gospel message.
For example, if I ask a person steeped in the new liturgy if they are perfect like God, like "He" is, then I might be adding static. "What do you mean perfect like He is, how do you know what gender God is?" I get tired even thinking about it.
I do think the real point of many things in our day is to make it more difficult to think clearly. Good benefits from clear thinking. Evil benefits from confused and muddled thinking.
Very good point!
This is fine work, Mr. Shane. For a little while in the 1970 the vernacular, "boss" reemerged briefly as in, "that was boss!" or "that corvette was boss." Sometime we said, "bosso." But we never said, "that was SO boss." The word so came to be abused decades later.
To sum up, your commentary was SO BOSS!
It is important to remember that in past decades, Americans have used language, from what I guess you'd consider more of a right-wing position, to exclude disfavored ideologies. "Red" was apparently a bit of a danger word in the '50s, enough so that the Cincinnati baseball team changed its name from Reds to Redlegs.
And apparently changed it back! So there is hope, you're saying. :)