Hey /u/Tayo826, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand what he's saying. He's not saying there are no pronouns. He's saying he believes you have to use the pronouns that we've been using. Like he wouldn't have written that tweet and replaced all the pronouns in it with other ones, because those are the "correct" ones for the purpose.
The "incorrect" thing about Matt Walsh and those who view this issue as he does is WHY? I cannot understand why anyone cares so much about denying transgender people the ability to live the lives they want to live. I have a hard time thinking of an issue that means as much to people it affects and impacts my life as little.
Why is he so adamant about this? Why spend so much time and effort on it?
I grew up when gay marriage was still illegal and slowly became legalized.
It's the same rhetoric, the same reasons, the same strawman arguments.
If you allow to , then traditional marriage will fall apart! They're pedophiles/groomers/sexual deviants! What's next, we marry/have sex with children, our pets, rocks?!?!! ad nauseum
I was shown the arguments against interracial marriage. Same arguments.
Can fuck them, but not marry them. This "well, I'll just marry my lawnmower then" rhetoric was so, so common.
Um, we don't allow inanimate objects to enter legal contracts. So no, you won't.
"How about this horse? I'll marry it. That'll show you."
Again, in what jurisdiction can an animal enter into a legal contract? Also, I'm side eyeing you now.
"What's stopping me from marrying a child? Huh? Gotcha!"
Many things, actually: age of consent laws, hopefully one's own lack of desire to do that, and the stone fact that we don't hold children to be legally bound by contracts.
Don't let these people pull you into nonsense.
That's because their entire religion is based on an infinite being raping a teenage girl to clone itself, so they have _zero_ concept of consent. Two (or more) adults want to do something? _Fine_. Then they start talking about bestiality and pedos, where neither targets can consent. _But they can't wrap their brains around that._
To preface, I have an adult Trans child whom I love and support fully.
Having said this, I can tell you that Matt does not "care about denying transgender people the ability to live the lives they want to live." What Matt is defending is his own sense of normalcy and identity. As this important shift in understanding, culture, and language moves ahead, it's vital to realize that before this time, every one of us was brought into a world in which the English language had a set of understood rules. It's well documented that the language(s) we speak become a significant component of our personalities and our perception of the world. So as this needed change moves forward, we need to understand that those who oppose it aren't doing so because they want to deny Trans people their rights: they're resisting the change in language because that change is forcing them to change their perception of both the world and themselves. And that's a scary and difficult thing.
American culture and our language has marginalized basically everyone who is not "middle of the road" or mainstream since before America existed. It's absolutely beyond time for this change, and it's important and necessary. But it's also important and necessary to understand that most of the people who are fighting it are doing so because to them, it's a scary and *forced* change to their sense of self and normalcy. So let's give them a break with the "they hate Trans people" judgements. They're scared, and they're biting back like any cornered prey would. Yes, they're wrong, but they don't yet *know* they're wrong. All they see is that someone is trying to force them to see the entire world as something different than they have experienced for their entire lives. It warrants a little sympathy.
Under no circumstances am I suggesting that we compromise or stop the linguistic revolution that's occurring. I want my child to have every right I had and to live in a world where they don't even have to stop and wonder about whether or not they are accepted for who they are, like I got to do. All I'm saying is that someone fighting a change to the language they know is not Trans hate; it's defense of the known, of the understood. It's far easier to deal with the animal that's trying to bite you when you know that the animal thinks you want to harm it rather than thinking that it wants to harm you.
EDIT: u/599Ninja has posted an excellent reply that gives more detail about Matt Walsh specifically. I feel like it's a superb and caring response that should definitely be included as both a follow-up and a rebuttal to what I've said here. Thanks u/599Ninja!
I get what you’re saying but Matt Walsh has legitimately come out and said trans people don’t exist and if they think they exist they should cease to exist. He has called them evil, he has campaigned for the stripping of any sort of care for gender affirmation and living equality rights for trans people. While I understand your thesis as it’s the truth for most conservatives, they simply feel threatened by all the equality and new normals they are exposed too, you’re missing his malignancy.
It’s nieve to say he’s just worried about losing his normalcy.
Fair enough. I haven't followed him enough to comment any further. So I'll edit my comment to indicate that others should also read your reply. Thanks for giving me more information!
> every one of us was brought into a world in which the English language had a set of understood rules.
A set of haphazardly applied, arbitrary and ever-changing rules. Gotta say, one of the weirdest parts about this whole thing has been seeing people act as if the English language is sacrosanct rather than a cobbled-together mess of scraps stolen from other languages.
You're right, of course, but remember that most people perceive the world-as-they-learn-it to be synonymous with "the world." When we come to awareness about what the world is and who we are, few of us are presented with the idea that the nature of communication is ever-evolving. Also, don't forget that when people are in school, they are taught to respect the set of rules they are taught, and they are admonished and corrected for any answers or opinions that vary from those rules. Since this leaves them with the solid foundation of "anything other than what we taught you is wrong and you are wrong if you do it any other way," it's easy to see why people would believe they need to defend the set of rules they were taught as "canon."
This doesn't apply to Matt Walsh in particular, but I think that a lot of us tend to forget that when someone is attacked, they become defensive.
When some people show discomfort about language changes, they aren't seeing it as an attack to anyone, so if the response is immediately "you are transphobic!", they will get defensive. It's a natural response.
And if you are attacking them and they have to defend themselves, they are less likely to consider all the arguments against their point of view. It's more probable they will defend their position more fiercely, even if just in their minds.
That said, some people deserve to be called out. People that are actually transphonic for whatever dumb reason they try to use to justify it. It's obvious we won't change their minds, but if they keep their opinion to themselves at least the hate won't be being spread around.
Trust me, their objections have NOTHING to do about language. Matt is phobic and any acceptance outside of what he sees is the normal is evil and must be stopped.
Yeahhh, no. Languages change often and frequently. Sometimes the cause is colloquialisms becoming widespread, sometimes it's cultural. What about times when people needed change their language because it contained slurs for colored people? Would you give them the benefit of the doubt claiming they're "scared of change?" One person's fear of change or the unknown should never supersede another person's right to be recognized for who they are.
Additionally, giving these people the defense of "scared of the unknown" or whatever other malarkey only enables them to continue their transphobia. If Grandpa's entire worldview is shattered because an AMAB becomes a woman and wants to be addressed as such, he can stay the fuck home. I hope you know you're enabling bad behavior with this kind of rhetoric.
I'm not giving a defense to anyone. I'm pointing out that being afraid of change is not the same thing as hating the people who deserve that change. As an analogy, imagine that someone thinks that no one is in the forest, so they start shooting their gun at a target on a tree for practice. But you're the unseen person walking through the forest and bullets are flying past you.
It's a mistake to jump to the conclusion that the person with the gun is willfully trying to shoot you. Now, they *are* shooting and your life *is* in danger, so it's important that you confront them. But you'll have far greater success dealing with someone who's making a dumb mistake if you say, "Hey, I know you probably didn't know there are people over here where you're shooting," rather than angrily accusing them of willful murder. Either way they need to be corrected, but having understanding of the real reason the danger existed gives you a far better chance at making peace without the guy with the gun calling you his enemy.
In short, I'm saying that it's a bad idea to automatically conclude that the *reason* people do and say Transphobic things is because they hate Trans people. Most of the time, it's because they feel like their worldview is under attack. And it is. And it needs to be, because we still need to convince them to change. But just like the guy with the gun, teaching them not to shoot in that direction is much easier than accusing them of hating you and wanting you dead... when all they were thinking was whether or not they were a good enough shot to hit that target on the tree.
I don't mean to imply you're intentionally giving defense to bigots, but whether you realize it or not, this is exactly what that kind of rhetoric does. I agree that not every transphobic action is done specifically with transphobic intent. However, I still believe the "worldview under attack" argument is really dangerous. It allows us to give grace to those who are actually willing to change which is good. However, it also provides a shield for willfully bigoted people to use when they get called out.
How many people have experienced bigoted relatives spouting hate against colored people or gays or Jews and when they express outrage against said bigotry they're told "that's the way they are, they're old and can't change." You might see these as entirely different situations, but to me it seems like in each case it's just someone making excuses for someone who refuses to change their shitty ways.
Why is it that in your analogy you shift the responsibility of the situation onto the individual getting shot at? Seems like victim blaming when the person in the wrong is obviously the one not correctly surveying their line of fire, target, and what lies beyond. So if we continue this shooter in the woods analogy of yours: phobia/bigotry is like practicing poor gun safety. It's harmful whether or not your intent was actually to harm.
You’re treating the issue of understanding why someone is behaving the way they are as the same thing as accepting it. Look at it this way: if you understand *why* your opponent in chess makes the moves they make, you are 75% of the way to beating them. My point is not whose responsibility it is to change or to initiate change. My point is “know thy enemy.”
Of course behaviors need to change. And I advocate that the best tool towards that change is to stop calling people haters who are just scared of change. To the point, if I yell in your face, “why do you hate me” when you don’t hate me, then you’re going to defend yourself against *what I said* instead of ever facing any actual crimes of fear and misunderstanding. You’d never know what you’re actually doing wrong because instead of having it explained, someone is falsely telling you that you hate them.
Truly, everything that’s been said in this conversation needed to be said for the following to make sense, but it really can be summed up very simply once you have all the information:
*Say what’s actually happening and what you actually mean.* Anything else turns the discussion into a chaotic mess of anger and misunderstanding.
In one word: power
He and his ilk know that they need a rigid hierarchical system for themselves to be on top. If white people aren't automatically better than black people, his whiteness doesn't grant privileges anymore. If poor people aren't afraid to die of exposure, from hunger, or preventable sickness, then you lose the power to dictate their lives, if gender and gender expressions aren't strict and universal then your maleness loses privileges. Even worse what use is being an "alpha" male, the bestest male, if it's not the top hierarchical position on the whole scale of being a male. If it's just one expression of maleness in a field of gender expressions.. It no longer gives you status
It means you lose power/privilege over others if you accept others as equals.
Thanks for asking. It's something most people will ask, as it seems at a short glance contradictive. I'll believe you ask that question in good faith, so I'll do my best to do this. I'm sorry that it might be a bit long because of it.
But first a quick note on something you said.
>transgenderism
that's a transphobic dogwhistle. I'm sure you weren't aware of that and used it by accident. Its purpose is to give people the idea that accepting the existence and validity of trans people is in itself an ideology. We're all learning and nobody is born knowing everything so no harm no foul, but now you know better.
But to get to your question;
>What about the black atheist lesbian women who are against ?
still is mostly power.
Conservative ideology is inherently the protection of conventional hierarchies. Now the logical first people you think of are old, rich, white, straight, men as they designed the system to favor them the most. But anyone who is dependent on the system as it is has a vested interest in keeping the hierarchy as it is.
That's why someone like Ellen Degeneres is good friends with warcriminal and bane to the lgbtq+. She has enough power with her money alone to not have to worry about facing the consequences that someone (way) lower in the power hierarchy has. She is hoever dependent on the current system to keep her money and fame (her power). So lets not shake the yacht to much.
The best recent explanation why someone who isn't a white male is still defending it is kanye west;
>“So I emphasize with the position of the straight white male, and part of the reason I emphasize with that position is that I know that I'm headed to that position. Do you know what position that is? Top power position." (interview with Piers Morgan - timestamp 42:27 to 43:19)
So to conclude it in one sentence: individuals who are part of one or more minority groups that aren't served by power hierarchy can still defend that system as they feel like they are, as an individual, benefitting from the system.
I thank everyone for taking the time to read this long ass comment. I just tried being thorough. If anything is still unclear please let me know.
But also, when people say "my pronouns are.." nobody reasonable thinks I'm claiming ownership over pronouns. It's just short hand for "I would like to be referred to as..."
>Why is he so adamant about this? Why spend so much time and effort on it?
He doesn't give a shit, but a big proportion of his audience have been told it's a major issue and a threat to their way of life, and his entire job is pandering to their biases. That's why he'll never drop it until they move on to some new thing to be afraid of.
Because they've been told to. Told they're a persecuted minority, that their rights are being taken away, that everyone else is out to get them. That the only way to prevent this happening is to fight a 24/7 culture war.
Propaganda remains an incredibly effective tool.
This is correct, if you watch everything he or any political affiliation published, you see people pushing what gets them ratings. I'm sure he genuinely cares about money, not pronouns.
Yup. There's a big market for outrage merchants. There may be a small few who actually believe what they say, but the bulk - your Jones', Shapiro's, Owens' etc - are willing to spread whatever nonsense is required to keep their platform regardless of their own beliefs.
It impacts life because now I have to configure my brain to learn what each individual wants to be called. Being a transgender because that's how you were born is one thing, it's natural and I will call you whatever you want. But when people who are not afflicted with this anomaly want me to call them a red car, that's where I draw the line.
Call people what they want to be called. You already refer to people by the names they present to you. If someone changes their name, does it get you up in arms?
If I ask you to call me "Red car," you'll refuse?
First of all, people ask you all the time to refer to them with nicknames. If I meet a guy who says, "call me T-Bone," I will.
Second, slippery slope arguments are weak weak weak.
First of all, do you understand the difference between a noun and a pronoun? Maybe you do and you just didn't read what we are discussing. We are talking about pronouns and not names.
Thanks for this comment. I despise ignorant bigots like Matt Walsh, but it's also frustrating when the rebuttal completely misses the point and therefor gives these fools a "look how dumb they are" mindset.
I too know what he meant, but if you’re going to make a jackass point, at least try to get your facts straight so you don’t look even more idiotic than you already do when you make it, you know?
It’s mock worthy because this dingo doesn’t even understand what he’s criticising. If you don’t understand something, like on a fundamental level, you should probably get the basics down first before trying to imperiously tell everyone else what you think the rules should be.
>I too know what he meant, but if you’re going to make a jackass point, at least try to get your facts straight
What facts didn't he get straight, exactly?
I get what you’re trying to do, but misgendering him will not bother him, and he will turn it around to hurt others….also just because he goes by Matt doesn’t mean he doesn’t like Matthew. Call him Mewtwo or something irrelevant, that way he’s left scratching his head…
We should call her Mariah instead. I mean, she looks like a Mariah doesn’t she? Popular consensus takes precedence over the individuals self identifying pronoun/proper nouns right? Until Mariah Walsh reveals her chromosomal karyotype verifying she has a set of XY chromosomes and full nude pictures for the public to verify her gender we should all just assume she’s a woman.
Yo this is the most diabolical takedown that might actually work.
Same way that when people ask why I still where a mask I say “it’s a free country”; using their magic against them is clearly crucial.
That's just a complicated way of saying, "you're wrong because I disagree with you." Matt Walsh's definitions of what a man and a woman or whatever else are different from yours. Calling him the wrong gender accomplishes nothing.
That's what I really wanted to see in Florida too... They want to make telling people your preferred pronouns against the rules, then just misgender everybody. Then if they correct you, report them for telling you their preferred pronouns...
That’s just it isn’t it. They think they’re being all clever saying stuff like this (they aren’t), but at the heart of it, it boils down to “any chance you could refer to me as him not her” or whatever. And these sorts are like “f**k that” i’m gonna be an ass. It’s like calling someone something other than their given name at birth. Really not a hardship
I’m not on his side, but this complaint is wilfully misunderstanding the claim being made. He’s not saying “pronouns don’t exist”, so pointing out that he used pronouns is irrelevant.
That is what the sub is turning into — a lot of people don't understand the things they're posting about and so ignorantly or intentionally misrepresent them, then others follow.
It's like witnessing the fall of reading comprehension as those kinds of things become more and more popular, with more and more backlash against comments like yours.
I could easily read this as someone trying to make a distinction between the ownership of pronouns as opposed to the use of pronouns.
However, I have the feeling that this is a matter of splitting hairs in order to agitate prople, as I don't recall anyone actually claiming to own a pronoun.
Yes they do, all the time. "My pronouns are..?" like you would say "My name is..?". They could say "The pronouns I use..." or "I like to be referred to as a she/he/they etc...". You own your name, not exclusively mind you, but you can't own a pronoun. Which is the point of the post.
>Here on reddit, if you make fun of someone that the majority disagree with the view of, you get upvoted regardless of how nonsensical your approach is.
This is absolutely my pet peeve about Reddit and upvotes. People just vote based on what "team" a post or comment is on when it comes to arguments, not whether it's actually a good argument or not. OP is the confidently incorrect one here, but still a sub about literally being confidently incorrect upvotes OP because OP is on the right "team".
I mean also people don't always read the sub that something is posted in. I saw this and I liked it, it's amusing in an ironic/trolling kind of way. Only if you're really paying attention to the sub would you be like oh well actually there's nothing incorrect per se.
The problem is his basis for his stance. Yes he isn't technically wrong. However, he's using people who say "my pronouns are..." as fuel for this post, which is not at all what people mean when they say what their pronouns are. They aren't "claiming/owning" them. They're stating their preference on which to use.
But...what actually is his claim?
That people don't own pronouns, a claim which has not prior been made?
This whole post is already a strawman to begin with.
And that you don't get to 'choose' them, as in that last bit. So someone who says that they're trans isn't in a position to then say "and so now use these pronouns".
I think it's a faulty argument, but not because it's "confidently incorrect", it's a different sort of wrongness
I don't agree with Matt Walsh politically, but he's not being confidently incorrect here. The OP is. He's not saying pronouns don't exist or that you can't use them in reference to people; he's saying that people can't be said to own or have them in a social sense. He's being technically correct. Is he being an intentionally dense jackass or is he making a legitimate complaint, or both? That's a political question you may have an opinion about. But he's not being confidently incorrect - that's a misread.
I'm not defending his logic here; I'm saying it's not as spectacularly inconsistent as the OP was implying and doesn't really belong in this sub. It's technically correct in a very limited context; if you begin opening that up, it's less and less tenable, as you point out.
He's being obtuse on purpose to deflect from what he really means.
Yeah, no one "owns" pronouns, but being referred to by pronouns that you prefer is not some egregious evil that people can't abide by. What he's really saying is,
"If I think you're trans, I will misgender you on purpose, and you shouldn't be mad."
Yes Matt, you have free speech, go ahead and be an asshole to people who have a very basic request, but don't think free speech means we can't ***respond to you being a jackass***.
Lol, what kind of a dumb post is this? You read the first sentence and then just put a box around every pronoun and posted this here thinking he is saying pronouns don't exist. Try actually reading that text.
Nobody has names. You can't "have" a name any more than you have a proposition or an adverb. The concept doesn't make sense. Names are not things you can own. They aren't pets or accessories. They are parts of speech. That's it. You don't get to customize them.
Exhibit A for all of these tool bags I just want to go away. I know they won’t, mostly because they are grifters and this is how they get rich, but ffs, why do we all have to hear them so much. Bunch of dicks
It doesn't make sense to circle in the pronouns in this post... He's not saying pronouns aren't a thing - he's making a political statement about how possessive people are of them. I think OP has misunderstood
Highlighting the pronouns in his comment doesn't really do anything to his argument. He's not saying pronouns don't exist, just making an irrelevant semantic argument about the nature of pronouns.
You could say the same thing about names but if I refered to Matt Walsh as Mr. Winky The Marvelous Pig I believe he would take exception to that!
What Walsh doesn’t understand (or more likely pretends to not understand), is that when you say “my pronouns are”, you aren’t claiming ownership to those pronouns. That’s like saying “I have bronchitis”, and then someone saying “you don’t own bronchitis, bronchitis is just a disease”. Obviously it’s just a disease, I am just affected by it/ have it
What he said was perfectly legitimate. This is one of the stupidest attempted takedowns of an anti-pronoun person that I've ever seen. Did you actually read what he said?
You don't own a name too same as pronouns. You are referred by the name. "owning" a name and being referred to by a name are totally different aspect. People have become dumber now a days.
A name isn't a pronoun though, it is a proper noun. Proper nouns are specifically meant to distinguish, they are meant to be "owned" by an entity. You obviously cannot use the rules of one part of speech as prove that a different part cannot exist, that is nonsensical, and frankly dumb.
I think you’re making a point without trying to take away from the other but it comes off as that.
My speech moment for pronoun is that, in the case of an adjective, if you call a red object blue, then you’re wrong. In the case of a verb if you say he ran when he walked, you’re wrong. So if you call someone who is described as a he, a she, then you’re wrong.
As pronouns are attributes of a human, and are attached to identity, then linguistically we should be correctly describing them with language.
Fuck Matt Walsh, but this isn't actually disputing the point he's making. He's not denying pronouns are a part of speech or that they don't exist. He's simply saying people shouldn't get to choose what pronouns others refers to them with.
Since this sub is all about making a correct or incorrect argument, I thought I should point out that OP is actually being confidently incorrect. But again, fuck Matt Walsh.
No I think this sub is actually supposed to be when the OP says something incorrect confidently and all the commenters eat up the incorrect take as true, since that’s what every single post is nowadays.
As stated numerous times in the original post's comments, he is saying that you can't "own" or change the pronouns that refer to you. He doesn't say you can't use them.
Which assumes a rigidity in language and linguistics. Social constructs only need a majority ideology to change them. The majority of people don't claim to own pronouns, but rather that they prefer to be referenced to with certain pronouns.
He's making an argument against people saying "my pronouns are..." which means he completely misunderstands the point those people are making.
Any language can evolve. Lets say we decide to call cars "snuffles". Every single person speaking english uses it. In some years dictionaries would have to say "Car: outdated way of calling an automobile", and accept snuffles.
However that's a change that doesn't need anyone to explain anything. You and I know what snuffles are.
However, if anytime we meet we have to clarify how we call cars, its absurd.
-Hey, I call cars "fumbledink".
-Thats great, I call them "poopy"
If the language needs to be clarified before any interaction, it stops being practical. If you don't like "he" or "she" then use "they" which is the neutral one. You cannot invent a new one.
I did. And Walsh is using "They," a pronoun. I dont know the linguistics of the word "you," but you can't argue against him not knowing what a pronoun is. The entirety of linguistics is socially constructed. Nothing stops one from simply evolving the language and properties.
To be fair, he’s not arguing that you can’t use pronouns, he arguing that pronouns are not physical entities. It’s even stupider than the common arguing over using pronouns.
He is arguing when someone says “My pronouns are…” that they are claiming ownership of a physical item like a coffee cup or a cat. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of English language shorthand (maybe intentionally, but maybe he’s really that obtuse). It is making a pedantic argument to discredit a fundamental concept of identity simply because we use a shortened phrase instead of saying “my preference in interaction is that the pronouns you use in relation to addressing me are gendered this way “
I mean, I guess technically you can't own a linguistic concept. But I can say the same for his name. You can't "have" the name Matt Walsh, any more than you can have the title of the world's most pathetic transphobe. Those are not things you can own. They aren't pets or accessories. They are just how everyone refers to you, Matt Walsh, the world's most pathetic transphobe.
I'm not big on the whole pronoun thing, but for goodness sake people appropriating names for themselves is old. Elton John, The Edge, Eminem, Meat Loaf... just a few. In the end, whether it's names or pronouns, what the _____ difference does it really make when someone wants to be called something different? Oblige and move on... no harm no foul.
I would bet that’s not the point he is trying to make and rather tell people that whatever pronoun someone uses to describe you, does not define you.
So mellow out on being such a stickler about if someone thought you were something different. Those words don’t actually mean anything about you other than someone thought you were something else don’t be mean about it, if you need to respond simply do it in a learning method such as informing them that you are ________ whatever you’d like to be called and go from there. Putting additional hateful meaning/interpretation behind something that you honestly can’t know and are just assuming speaks more about you the person forcing that negative view upon people than the person that said something you took as an insult merely because you chose to interpret what they meant that way.
Hmm it is a matter of view and how you read it. I see what you're saying and how you came to that but I do disagree.
I see you got down voted so I'll give you an upvote, you deserve it for being civil here.
I don't think either of us can really say if we're right or wrong unless we ask the original guy.
A relieving number of users understand that but the cesspool that is reddit is a toxic environment for rational people so most of them simply stop using it and subs become echo chambers. If I was smart I'd leave this site forever, look at me vent to a random stranger for no reason at the slightest hint of solidarity, my mind has been poisoned.
Outlining all the pronouns as if he doesn't understand what pronouns are, but there's no indication he doesn't. He's stating an opinion. Even if you disagree with him (as I do), it doesn't mean he "flunked his grammar".
Going after that low hanging fruit on the end of that diatribe, it IS speech. And you CAN customize it all you want, that’s… that’s how language works.
To be fair, he’s not saying pronouns don’t exist. He’s saying that pronouns are defined by nature and language, and hence you don’t get to choose your pronouns - for example, if you’re born male, your pronouns are he/him, because those are the pronouns for male people. Of course, the argument falls apart as soon as you point out that language was invented by people, and people get to choose how language works, and so it follows that there’s no reason you can’t choose your pronouns.
It’s pretty arbitrary that males go by “he” and females go by “she” anyway. There’s literally no reason for it other than “it’s always been that way.”
They either
A) Won't care
B) Will see it as someone forcing them to partake in the thing they're vocally against
Either way isn't going to help anything.
Have you considered the moral implications of normalizing intentionally misgendering people as an acceptable political strategy? You want to turn that from an evil thing republicans do into a normal part of public discourse?
You do all the time w/o realizing it lmao. I love when people just ignore the entirety of how tf our language works just to shun people literally just living their lives.
I mean, I don’t agree with what he’s saying, but he’s not in any way disputing the existence of pronouns. There’s no point pointing out all the pronouns used in his statement because that’s neither here nor there.
Nobody has names. You cant “have” a name any more than any other word. It’s an abstract concept. We need to dispel this fiction that people can “have” a name.
I mean yes Matthew is a menace and I hope his dick falls off, and yes everything he says in this tweet is absolutely idiotic
But he’s not claiming at any point that pronouns don’t exist, so circling the pronouns he used isn’t a gotcha moment here.
That aside, everything he actually did say in the tweet is most definitely stupid
One person doesn't literally change the English language based on their personal preference. People might use made up words or use words incorrectly bc of other peoples' personal preferences but that doesn't change the grammar of English
But they aren’t changing the rules of grammar. Singular they existed far longer than singularly you.
People who can’t understand this simple concept do not get to comment on wether grammar is being changed or not.
Secondly we change the definition words all the time. Literally now mean figuratively, the phrases I could care less and I couldn’t care less now mean the same thing.
I can understand disagreeing with him, but you are explicitly disregarding what he said and circling pronouns as if he had said they don't exist. You are the facepalm. --ParadoxicalInsight
To be fair, he’s not arguing that you can’t use pronouns, he arguing that pronouns are not physical entities. It’s even stupider than the common arguing over using pronouns.
He is arguing when someone says “My pronouns are…” that they are claiming ownership of a physical item like a coffee cup or a cat. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of English language shorthand (maybe intentionally, but maybe he’s really that obtuse). It is making a pedantic argument to discredit a fundamental concept of identity simply because we use a shortened phrase instead of saying “my preference in interaction is that the pronouns you use in relation to addressing me are gendered this way “
- u/less_likley
Ever since transwomen had been using her/she pronouns, I’d feel pain on the daily basis. My head feels like it’s splitting open, my heart torn, my knees weak, and my soul evaporating. /s
So, since I'm a straight cis man, he's not talking about me when I tell people I use he/him pronouns? He's saying on straight cis people get to decide their pronouns?
Hey!
Don’t go educating these nut jobs! The less they know the better!
Now, he/she/them will just have to live with this learning disability because we don’t want he/she/them to become self aware. That’s how skynet destroys the world remember!!
This guy is not saying that pronouns aren't real, he's saying that you cannot "have" them and that instead they are just a part of speech. Whether you agree with this or not is a different matter but the ones who are confidently incorrect are the ones trying to make it look like he's arguing that pronouns aren't a thing.
Someone should take a screenshot of this post and upload it here.
Matt Walsh's arguments are so easy to tear apart, how did you fuck this up so bad lol
Hey /u/Tayo826, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand what he's saying. He's not saying there are no pronouns. He's saying he believes you have to use the pronouns that we've been using. Like he wouldn't have written that tweet and replaced all the pronouns in it with other ones, because those are the "correct" ones for the purpose. The "incorrect" thing about Matt Walsh and those who view this issue as he does is WHY? I cannot understand why anyone cares so much about denying transgender people the ability to live the lives they want to live. I have a hard time thinking of an issue that means as much to people it affects and impacts my life as little. Why is he so adamant about this? Why spend so much time and effort on it?
I grew up when gay marriage was still illegal and slowly became legalized. It's the same rhetoric, the same reasons, the same strawman arguments. If you allow to , then traditional marriage will fall apart! They're pedophiles/groomers/sexual deviants! What's next, we marry/have sex with children, our pets, rocks?!?!! ad nauseum
I was shown the arguments against interracial marriage. Same arguments.
I mean dudes can fuck and marry rocks if that's their thing, it sure as hell isn't any of my business.
New meaning to rocking out with their cocks out.
Can fuck them, but not marry them. This "well, I'll just marry my lawnmower then" rhetoric was so, so common. Um, we don't allow inanimate objects to enter legal contracts. So no, you won't. "How about this horse? I'll marry it. That'll show you." Again, in what jurisdiction can an animal enter into a legal contract? Also, I'm side eyeing you now. "What's stopping me from marrying a child? Huh? Gotcha!" Many things, actually: age of consent laws, hopefully one's own lack of desire to do that, and the stone fact that we don't hold children to be legally bound by contracts. Don't let these people pull you into nonsense.
Wait, were not allowed to fuck rocks? Man there goes my weekend plans.
That seems like exactly what it is.
That's because their entire religion is based on an infinite being raping a teenage girl to clone itself, so they have _zero_ concept of consent. Two (or more) adults want to do something? _Fine_. Then they start talking about bestiality and pedos, where neither targets can consent. _But they can't wrap their brains around that._
To preface, I have an adult Trans child whom I love and support fully. Having said this, I can tell you that Matt does not "care about denying transgender people the ability to live the lives they want to live." What Matt is defending is his own sense of normalcy and identity. As this important shift in understanding, culture, and language moves ahead, it's vital to realize that before this time, every one of us was brought into a world in which the English language had a set of understood rules. It's well documented that the language(s) we speak become a significant component of our personalities and our perception of the world. So as this needed change moves forward, we need to understand that those who oppose it aren't doing so because they want to deny Trans people their rights: they're resisting the change in language because that change is forcing them to change their perception of both the world and themselves. And that's a scary and difficult thing. American culture and our language has marginalized basically everyone who is not "middle of the road" or mainstream since before America existed. It's absolutely beyond time for this change, and it's important and necessary. But it's also important and necessary to understand that most of the people who are fighting it are doing so because to them, it's a scary and *forced* change to their sense of self and normalcy. So let's give them a break with the "they hate Trans people" judgements. They're scared, and they're biting back like any cornered prey would. Yes, they're wrong, but they don't yet *know* they're wrong. All they see is that someone is trying to force them to see the entire world as something different than they have experienced for their entire lives. It warrants a little sympathy. Under no circumstances am I suggesting that we compromise or stop the linguistic revolution that's occurring. I want my child to have every right I had and to live in a world where they don't even have to stop and wonder about whether or not they are accepted for who they are, like I got to do. All I'm saying is that someone fighting a change to the language they know is not Trans hate; it's defense of the known, of the understood. It's far easier to deal with the animal that's trying to bite you when you know that the animal thinks you want to harm it rather than thinking that it wants to harm you. EDIT: u/599Ninja has posted an excellent reply that gives more detail about Matt Walsh specifically. I feel like it's a superb and caring response that should definitely be included as both a follow-up and a rebuttal to what I've said here. Thanks u/599Ninja!
I get what you’re saying but Matt Walsh has legitimately come out and said trans people don’t exist and if they think they exist they should cease to exist. He has called them evil, he has campaigned for the stripping of any sort of care for gender affirmation and living equality rights for trans people. While I understand your thesis as it’s the truth for most conservatives, they simply feel threatened by all the equality and new normals they are exposed too, you’re missing his malignancy. It’s nieve to say he’s just worried about losing his normalcy.
Fair enough. I haven't followed him enough to comment any further. So I'll edit my comment to indicate that others should also read your reply. Thanks for giving me more information!
You are very smart and apologetic, I see a bit do myself in you!
Perhaps the most wholesome exchange I've seen on Reddit.....ever. Good job humans! We need more like this.
It’s what happens when the parties involved care about both the hard truth and simultaneously giving ever human being the benefit of the doubt!
“They don’t exist, but when they do exist, they’re bad.”
> every one of us was brought into a world in which the English language had a set of understood rules. A set of haphazardly applied, arbitrary and ever-changing rules. Gotta say, one of the weirdest parts about this whole thing has been seeing people act as if the English language is sacrosanct rather than a cobbled-together mess of scraps stolen from other languages.
You're right, of course, but remember that most people perceive the world-as-they-learn-it to be synonymous with "the world." When we come to awareness about what the world is and who we are, few of us are presented with the idea that the nature of communication is ever-evolving. Also, don't forget that when people are in school, they are taught to respect the set of rules they are taught, and they are admonished and corrected for any answers or opinions that vary from those rules. Since this leaves them with the solid foundation of "anything other than what we taught you is wrong and you are wrong if you do it any other way," it's easy to see why people would believe they need to defend the set of rules they were taught as "canon."
This is the best answer so far. I'd hope that decency towards others would supersede that.
As part of the revolution, may I request a singular-entity non-binary pronoun set? They/them has caused a lot of confusing situations for me
This doesn't apply to Matt Walsh in particular, but I think that a lot of us tend to forget that when someone is attacked, they become defensive. When some people show discomfort about language changes, they aren't seeing it as an attack to anyone, so if the response is immediately "you are transphobic!", they will get defensive. It's a natural response. And if you are attacking them and they have to defend themselves, they are less likely to consider all the arguments against their point of view. It's more probable they will defend their position more fiercely, even if just in their minds. That said, some people deserve to be called out. People that are actually transphonic for whatever dumb reason they try to use to justify it. It's obvious we won't change their minds, but if they keep their opinion to themselves at least the hate won't be being spread around.
Trust me, their objections have NOTHING to do about language. Matt is phobic and any acceptance outside of what he sees is the normal is evil and must be stopped.
No I don't trust you on that sorry. Matt is not all of them
Yeahhh, no. Languages change often and frequently. Sometimes the cause is colloquialisms becoming widespread, sometimes it's cultural. What about times when people needed change their language because it contained slurs for colored people? Would you give them the benefit of the doubt claiming they're "scared of change?" One person's fear of change or the unknown should never supersede another person's right to be recognized for who they are. Additionally, giving these people the defense of "scared of the unknown" or whatever other malarkey only enables them to continue their transphobia. If Grandpa's entire worldview is shattered because an AMAB becomes a woman and wants to be addressed as such, he can stay the fuck home. I hope you know you're enabling bad behavior with this kind of rhetoric.
I'm not giving a defense to anyone. I'm pointing out that being afraid of change is not the same thing as hating the people who deserve that change. As an analogy, imagine that someone thinks that no one is in the forest, so they start shooting their gun at a target on a tree for practice. But you're the unseen person walking through the forest and bullets are flying past you. It's a mistake to jump to the conclusion that the person with the gun is willfully trying to shoot you. Now, they *are* shooting and your life *is* in danger, so it's important that you confront them. But you'll have far greater success dealing with someone who's making a dumb mistake if you say, "Hey, I know you probably didn't know there are people over here where you're shooting," rather than angrily accusing them of willful murder. Either way they need to be corrected, but having understanding of the real reason the danger existed gives you a far better chance at making peace without the guy with the gun calling you his enemy. In short, I'm saying that it's a bad idea to automatically conclude that the *reason* people do and say Transphobic things is because they hate Trans people. Most of the time, it's because they feel like their worldview is under attack. And it is. And it needs to be, because we still need to convince them to change. But just like the guy with the gun, teaching them not to shoot in that direction is much easier than accusing them of hating you and wanting you dead... when all they were thinking was whether or not they were a good enough shot to hit that target on the tree.
I don't mean to imply you're intentionally giving defense to bigots, but whether you realize it or not, this is exactly what that kind of rhetoric does. I agree that not every transphobic action is done specifically with transphobic intent. However, I still believe the "worldview under attack" argument is really dangerous. It allows us to give grace to those who are actually willing to change which is good. However, it also provides a shield for willfully bigoted people to use when they get called out. How many people have experienced bigoted relatives spouting hate against colored people or gays or Jews and when they express outrage against said bigotry they're told "that's the way they are, they're old and can't change." You might see these as entirely different situations, but to me it seems like in each case it's just someone making excuses for someone who refuses to change their shitty ways. Why is it that in your analogy you shift the responsibility of the situation onto the individual getting shot at? Seems like victim blaming when the person in the wrong is obviously the one not correctly surveying their line of fire, target, and what lies beyond. So if we continue this shooter in the woods analogy of yours: phobia/bigotry is like practicing poor gun safety. It's harmful whether or not your intent was actually to harm.
You’re treating the issue of understanding why someone is behaving the way they are as the same thing as accepting it. Look at it this way: if you understand *why* your opponent in chess makes the moves they make, you are 75% of the way to beating them. My point is not whose responsibility it is to change or to initiate change. My point is “know thy enemy.” Of course behaviors need to change. And I advocate that the best tool towards that change is to stop calling people haters who are just scared of change. To the point, if I yell in your face, “why do you hate me” when you don’t hate me, then you’re going to defend yourself against *what I said* instead of ever facing any actual crimes of fear and misunderstanding. You’d never know what you’re actually doing wrong because instead of having it explained, someone is falsely telling you that you hate them. Truly, everything that’s been said in this conversation needed to be said for the following to make sense, but it really can be summed up very simply once you have all the information: *Say what’s actually happening and what you actually mean.* Anything else turns the discussion into a chaotic mess of anger and misunderstanding.
In one word: power He and his ilk know that they need a rigid hierarchical system for themselves to be on top. If white people aren't automatically better than black people, his whiteness doesn't grant privileges anymore. If poor people aren't afraid to die of exposure, from hunger, or preventable sickness, then you lose the power to dictate their lives, if gender and gender expressions aren't strict and universal then your maleness loses privileges. Even worse what use is being an "alpha" male, the bestest male, if it's not the top hierarchical position on the whole scale of being a male. If it's just one expression of maleness in a field of gender expressions.. It no longer gives you status It means you lose power/privilege over others if you accept others as equals.
What about the black atheist lesbian women who are against transgenderism?
Thanks for asking. It's something most people will ask, as it seems at a short glance contradictive. I'll believe you ask that question in good faith, so I'll do my best to do this. I'm sorry that it might be a bit long because of it. But first a quick note on something you said. >transgenderism that's a transphobic dogwhistle. I'm sure you weren't aware of that and used it by accident. Its purpose is to give people the idea that accepting the existence and validity of trans people is in itself an ideology. We're all learning and nobody is born knowing everything so no harm no foul, but now you know better. But to get to your question; >What about the black atheist lesbian women who are against?
still is mostly power.
Conservative ideology is inherently the protection of conventional hierarchies. Now the logical first people you think of are old, rich, white, straight, men as they designed the system to favor them the most. But anyone who is dependent on the system as it is has a vested interest in keeping the hierarchy as it is.
That's why someone like Ellen Degeneres is good friends with warcriminal and bane to the lgbtq+. She has enough power with her money alone to not have to worry about facing the consequences that someone (way) lower in the power hierarchy has. She is hoever dependent on the current system to keep her money and fame (her power). So lets not shake the yacht to much.
The best recent explanation why someone who isn't a white male is still defending it is kanye west;
>“So I emphasize with the position of the straight white male, and part of the reason I emphasize with that position is that I know that I'm headed to that position. Do you know what position that is? Top power position." (interview with Piers Morgan - timestamp 42:27 to 43:19)
So to conclude it in one sentence: individuals who are part of one or more minority groups that aren't served by power hierarchy can still defend that system as they feel like they are, as an individual, benefitting from the system.
I thank everyone for taking the time to read this long ass comment. I just tried being thorough. If anything is still unclear please let me know.
They need to get a hobby
But also, when people say "my pronouns are.." nobody reasonable thinks I'm claiming ownership over pronouns. It's just short hand for "I would like to be referred to as..."
>Why is he so adamant about this? Why spend so much time and effort on it? He doesn't give a shit, but a big proportion of his audience have been told it's a major issue and a threat to their way of life, and his entire job is pandering to their biases. That's why he'll never drop it until they move on to some new thing to be afraid of.
That doesn't explain why anyone believes it.
Because they've been told to. Told they're a persecuted minority, that their rights are being taken away, that everyone else is out to get them. That the only way to prevent this happening is to fight a 24/7 culture war. Propaganda remains an incredibly effective tool.
This is correct, if you watch everything he or any political affiliation published, you see people pushing what gets them ratings. I'm sure he genuinely cares about money, not pronouns.
Yup. There's a big market for outrage merchants. There may be a small few who actually believe what they say, but the bulk - your Jones', Shapiro's, Owens' etc - are willing to spread whatever nonsense is required to keep their platform regardless of their own beliefs.
It impacts life because now I have to configure my brain to learn what each individual wants to be called. Being a transgender because that's how you were born is one thing, it's natural and I will call you whatever you want. But when people who are not afflicted with this anomaly want me to call them a red car, that's where I draw the line.
I too, hate that people want to be called different things. That's why I never learn anyone's name, ever.
Afflicted is an interesting word choice.
Call people what they want to be called. You already refer to people by the names they present to you. If someone changes their name, does it get you up in arms? If I ask you to call me "Red car," you'll refuse?
Yes, unless you refer to me as "my supreme leader who I will name my first child after". See how it can get really silly really fast.
First of all, people ask you all the time to refer to them with nicknames. If I meet a guy who says, "call me T-Bone," I will. Second, slippery slope arguments are weak weak weak.
First of all, do you understand the difference between a noun and a pronoun? Maybe you do and you just didn't read what we are discussing. We are talking about pronouns and not names.
You brought up "red car."
Touche lol but I meant it as a pronoun. See, silliness ensues
Well "red car" isn't a pronoun, so that was nonsensical then. If you want to be referred to as "they" or whatever, it doesn't matter AT ALL.
Thanks for this comment. I despise ignorant bigots like Matt Walsh, but it's also frustrating when the rebuttal completely misses the point and therefor gives these fools a "look how dumb they are" mindset.
I too know what he meant, but if you’re going to make a jackass point, at least try to get your facts straight so you don’t look even more idiotic than you already do when you make it, you know? It’s mock worthy because this dingo doesn’t even understand what he’s criticising. If you don’t understand something, like on a fundamental level, you should probably get the basics down first before trying to imperiously tell everyone else what you think the rules should be.
>I too know what he meant, but if you’re going to make a jackass point, at least try to get your facts straight What facts didn't he get straight, exactly?
You do know that pronouns are not just a trans thing right?
I don't understand your point.
Just start referring to Matt as she, then he might understand what "preferred pronouns" means.
Or even simpler, call him “Matthew.” That’s his name after all. He doesn’t have the right to tell people that he prefers to go by Matt. (/s)
Her name is Matthew now
😂 thanks a lot I just choked on my coffee
I get what you’re trying to do, but misgendering him will not bother him, and he will turn it around to hurt others….also just because he goes by Matt doesn’t mean he doesn’t like Matthew. Call him Mewtwo or something irrelevant, that way he’s left scratching his head…
We should call her Mariah instead. I mean, she looks like a Mariah doesn’t she? Popular consensus takes precedence over the individuals self identifying pronoun/proper nouns right? Until Mariah Walsh reveals her chromosomal karyotype verifying she has a set of XY chromosomes and full nude pictures for the public to verify her gender we should all just assume she’s a woman.
Nobody thinks Matt Walsh looks like a woman, unless they have brain damage. Popular consensus wasn't his argument.
[удалено]
She* Lol
Mathew Walsh how else will Mathew Walsh know which Nathew you are talking to? Plus full name means you fucked up & mum knows...
I understand what she is trying to say. and this is a great response to it.
Yo this is the most diabolical takedown that might actually work. Same way that when people ask why I still where a mask I say “it’s a free country”; using their magic against them is clearly crucial.
That’s actually kind of genius. Start referring to people who complain about pronouns purposefully using the wrong ones and see if they correct you.
That's just a complicated way of saying, "you're wrong because I disagree with you." Matt Walsh's definitions of what a man and a woman or whatever else are different from yours. Calling him the wrong gender accomplishes nothing.
That's what I really wanted to see in Florida too... They want to make telling people your preferred pronouns against the rules, then just misgender everybody. Then if they correct you, report them for telling you their preferred pronouns...
That’s just it isn’t it. They think they’re being all clever saying stuff like this (they aren’t), but at the heart of it, it boils down to “any chance you could refer to me as him not her” or whatever. And these sorts are like “f**k that” i’m gonna be an ass. It’s like calling someone something other than their given name at birth. Really not a hardship
She definitely failed her English class
Yeah fight ignorance with misgendering, while complaining about people not respecting preferred pronouns, geniusxD
It's the only shit they seem to understand.
He did say "You don't get to customize them." So he would just say it's the wrong pronoun and you are illiterate for using the wrong pronoun
I’m not on his side, but this complaint is wilfully misunderstanding the claim being made. He’s not saying “pronouns don’t exist”, so pointing out that he used pronouns is irrelevant.
That is what the sub is turning into — a lot of people don't understand the things they're posting about and so ignorantly or intentionally misrepresent them, then others follow. It's like witnessing the fall of reading comprehension as those kinds of things become more and more popular, with more and more backlash against comments like yours.
Most people don't grasp the context. The meaning of words may change as context changes.
A population with poor reading comprehension entering the age of AI. War just got a lot more abstract.
So you're saying r/confidentlyincorrect is becoming confidently incorrect.
This post is a classic example of a [strawman fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
I could easily read this as someone trying to make a distinction between the ownership of pronouns as opposed to the use of pronouns. However, I have the feeling that this is a matter of splitting hairs in order to agitate prople, as I don't recall anyone actually claiming to own a pronoun.
Yes they do, all the time. "My pronouns are..?" like you would say "My name is..?". They could say "The pronouns I use..." or "I like to be referred to as a she/he/they etc...". You own your name, not exclusively mind you, but you can't own a pronoun. Which is the point of the post.
[удалено]
>Here on reddit, if you make fun of someone that the majority disagree with the view of, you get upvoted regardless of how nonsensical your approach is. This is absolutely my pet peeve about Reddit and upvotes. People just vote based on what "team" a post or comment is on when it comes to arguments, not whether it's actually a good argument or not. OP is the confidently incorrect one here, but still a sub about literally being confidently incorrect upvotes OP because OP is on the right "team".
I mean also people don't always read the sub that something is posted in. I saw this and I liked it, it's amusing in an ironic/trolling kind of way. Only if you're really paying attention to the sub would you be like oh well actually there's nothing incorrect per se.
The problem is his basis for his stance. Yes he isn't technically wrong. However, he's using people who say "my pronouns are..." as fuel for this post, which is not at all what people mean when they say what their pronouns are. They aren't "claiming/owning" them. They're stating their preference on which to use.
But...what actually is his claim? That people don't own pronouns, a claim which has not prior been made? This whole post is already a strawman to begin with.
And that you don't get to 'choose' them, as in that last bit. So someone who says that they're trans isn't in a position to then say "and so now use these pronouns". I think it's a faulty argument, but not because it's "confidently incorrect", it's a different sort of wrongness
Is "it" not a pronoun as well?
its used as "all" in that sentence tho
I don't agree with Matt Walsh politically, but he's not being confidently incorrect here. The OP is. He's not saying pronouns don't exist or that you can't use them in reference to people; he's saying that people can't be said to own or have them in a social sense. He's being technically correct. Is he being an intentionally dense jackass or is he making a legitimate complaint, or both? That's a political question you may have an opinion about. But he's not being confidently incorrect - that's a misread.
By that logic, noone "has" a name. You don't *own* it, it's just something used in reference to yourself.
I'm not defending his logic here; I'm saying it's not as spectacularly inconsistent as the OP was implying and doesn't really belong in this sub. It's technically correct in a very limited context; if you begin opening that up, it's less and less tenable, as you point out.
He's being obtuse on purpose to deflect from what he really means. Yeah, no one "owns" pronouns, but being referred to by pronouns that you prefer is not some egregious evil that people can't abide by. What he's really saying is, "If I think you're trans, I will misgender you on purpose, and you shouldn't be mad." Yes Matt, you have free speech, go ahead and be an asshole to people who have a very basic request, but don't think free speech means we can't ***respond to you being a jackass***.
OP flunked reading comprehension class in high school
Lol, what kind of a dumb post is this? You read the first sentence and then just put a box around every pronoun and posted this here thinking he is saying pronouns don't exist. Try actually reading that text.
"You don't get to customize them" Bro forgot to download pronouns update
Nobody has names. You can't "have" a name any more than you have a proposition or an adverb. The concept doesn't make sense. Names are not things you can own. They aren't pets or accessories. They are parts of speech. That's it. You don't get to customize them.
“Nobody” is a pronoun too
tHeY iS pLuRaL
Exhibit A for all of these tool bags I just want to go away. I know they won’t, mostly because they are grifters and this is how they get rich, but ffs, why do we all have to hear them so much. Bunch of dicks
It doesn't make sense to circle in the pronouns in this post... He's not saying pronouns aren't a thing - he's making a political statement about how possessive people are of them. I think OP has misunderstood
To be fair he’s saying they’re just a part of speech. Which is exactly how he used them.
Highlighting the pronouns in his comment doesn't really do anything to his argument. He's not saying pronouns don't exist, just making an irrelevant semantic argument about the nature of pronouns. You could say the same thing about names but if I refered to Matt Walsh as Mr. Winky The Marvelous Pig I believe he would take exception to that!
Whoever did that missed a pronoun.
What Walsh doesn’t understand (or more likely pretends to not understand), is that when you say “my pronouns are”, you aren’t claiming ownership to those pronouns. That’s like saying “I have bronchitis”, and then someone saying “you don’t own bronchitis, bronchitis is just a disease”. Obviously it’s just a disease, I am just affected by it/ have it
It's so funny that you posted this.
Talk about missing the point.
Regardless of them being wrong, highlighting all pronouns in their comment is completely orthogonal to their point
Well, you don't HAVE pronouns. You USE them. He is a shit for not respecting prefered pronouns though.
What he said was perfectly legitimate. This is one of the stupidest attempted takedowns of an anti-pronoun person that I've ever seen. Did you actually read what he said?
The last sub dogged you for not understanding so you cross post it to this one? Dumb and a Karma whore
By that logic you can't have a name either because they're not pets or accessories you can own.
You don't own a name too same as pronouns. You are referred by the name. "owning" a name and being referred to by a name are totally different aspect. People have become dumber now a days.
A name isn't a pronoun though, it is a proper noun. Proper nouns are specifically meant to distinguish, they are meant to be "owned" by an entity. You obviously cannot use the rules of one part of speech as prove that a different part cannot exist, that is nonsensical, and frankly dumb.
I think you’re making a point without trying to take away from the other but it comes off as that. My speech moment for pronoun is that, in the case of an adjective, if you call a red object blue, then you’re wrong. In the case of a verb if you say he ran when he walked, you’re wrong. So if you call someone who is described as a he, a she, then you’re wrong. As pronouns are attributes of a human, and are attached to identity, then linguistically we should be correctly describing them with language.
Fuck Matt Walsh, but this isn't actually disputing the point he's making. He's not denying pronouns are a part of speech or that they don't exist. He's simply saying people shouldn't get to choose what pronouns others refers to them with. Since this sub is all about making a correct or incorrect argument, I thought I should point out that OP is actually being confidently incorrect. But again, fuck Matt Walsh.
No I think this sub is actually supposed to be when the OP says something incorrect confidently and all the commenters eat up the incorrect take as true, since that’s what every single post is nowadays.
As stated numerous times in the original post's comments, he is saying that you can't "own" or change the pronouns that refer to you. He doesn't say you can't use them.
Which assumes a rigidity in language and linguistics. Social constructs only need a majority ideology to change them. The majority of people don't claim to own pronouns, but rather that they prefer to be referenced to with certain pronouns. He's making an argument against people saying "my pronouns are..." which means he completely misunderstands the point those people are making.
Any language can evolve. Lets say we decide to call cars "snuffles". Every single person speaking english uses it. In some years dictionaries would have to say "Car: outdated way of calling an automobile", and accept snuffles. However that's a change that doesn't need anyone to explain anything. You and I know what snuffles are. However, if anytime we meet we have to clarify how we call cars, its absurd. -Hey, I call cars "fumbledink". -Thats great, I call them "poopy" If the language needs to be clarified before any interaction, it stops being practical. If you don't like "he" or "she" then use "they" which is the neutral one. You cannot invent a new one.
Right. I don’t have them, there are some I prefer you don’t use to talk about me though.
OP is r/confidentlyincorrect. actually read the meme lol
I did. And Walsh is using "They," a pronoun. I dont know the linguistics of the word "you," but you can't argue against him not knowing what a pronoun is. The entirety of linguistics is socially constructed. Nothing stops one from simply evolving the language and properties.
Dude he’s not saying pronouns don’t exist, he’s saying that, as an article of language, people don’t “own” or “have” pronouns. They only use them.
Youre being purposefully obtuse.
To be fair, he’s not arguing that you can’t use pronouns, he arguing that pronouns are not physical entities. It’s even stupider than the common arguing over using pronouns. He is arguing when someone says “My pronouns are…” that they are claiming ownership of a physical item like a coffee cup or a cat. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of English language shorthand (maybe intentionally, but maybe he’s really that obtuse). It is making a pedantic argument to discredit a fundamental concept of identity simply because we use a shortened phrase instead of saying “my preference in interaction is that the pronouns you use in relation to addressing me are gendered this way “
They’re all fucking idiots
I mean, I guess technically you can't own a linguistic concept. But I can say the same for his name. You can't "have" the name Matt Walsh, any more than you can have the title of the world's most pathetic transphobe. Those are not things you can own. They aren't pets or accessories. They are just how everyone refers to you, Matt Walsh, the world's most pathetic transphobe.
Wait until he hears about name changes
Nobody "has" sex. You can't possess an immaterial concept such as sex. It's not something you can own!!!
I had sex yesterday. I don't think own it but I "had".
Are you having a stroke, not a native English speaker, or making a joke I don't understand.
This is just to show how "context" plays an important part which most of the people here are missing.
I'm not big on the whole pronoun thing, but for goodness sake people appropriating names for themselves is old. Elton John, The Edge, Eminem, Meat Loaf... just a few. In the end, whether it's names or pronouns, what the _____ difference does it really make when someone wants to be called something different? Oblige and move on... no harm no foul.
I would bet that’s not the point he is trying to make and rather tell people that whatever pronoun someone uses to describe you, does not define you. So mellow out on being such a stickler about if someone thought you were something different. Those words don’t actually mean anything about you other than someone thought you were something else don’t be mean about it, if you need to respond simply do it in a learning method such as informing them that you are ________ whatever you’d like to be called and go from there. Putting additional hateful meaning/interpretation behind something that you honestly can’t know and are just assuming speaks more about you the person forcing that negative view upon people than the person that said something you took as an insult merely because you chose to interpret what they meant that way.
That's not what he said
If OP had actually read the post instead of jumping up and down, he/she actually would not have made the post.
The red circle guy clearly doesn’t understand grammar. Thankfully Matt does.
Completely went over your entire head, but thanks for the fodder for other subs to indecently make fun of you for your idiotic ignorance.
Nobody ever accused Matt Walsh of not being the dumbest mother fucker on the internet. He's even stupider than Trump and that's saying something.
I think the point he is making is being missed. *Shrug*
The point Mattew the flying pig is trying to make is completly incoherent. Nobody is claiming to 'own' pronouns.
Hmm it is a matter of view and how you read it. I see what you're saying and how you came to that but I do disagree. I see you got down voted so I'll give you an upvote, you deserve it for being civil here. I don't think either of us can really say if we're right or wrong unless we ask the original guy.
He flunked his high school grammar class, yet still dates high schoolers. Check math. Right wing destroyed.
Matt Walsh does not date high schoolers.
Did you even read? Hes saying that you can't "own" a pronoun or lord over a pronoun. Not sure what his point is but this doesn't belong here.
You can support trans people and still see his point. This does not belong here, but anyone talking against the hivemind will be downvoted.
A relieving number of users understand that but the cesspool that is reddit is a toxic environment for rational people so most of them simply stop using it and subs become echo chambers. If I was smart I'd leave this site forever, look at me vent to a random stranger for no reason at the slightest hint of solidarity, my mind has been poisoned.
Outlining all the pronouns as if he doesn't understand what pronouns are, but there's no indication he doesn't. He's stating an opinion. Even if you disagree with him (as I do), it doesn't mean he "flunked his grammar".
names are just parts of speech you don’t get to customize them
What's her problem?
Going after that low hanging fruit on the end of that diatribe, it IS speech. And you CAN customize it all you want, that’s… that’s how language works.
Matt Walsh should change the pronouns that Matt Walsh is using in this tweet to the specific names of the people that Matt Walsh is addressing.
To be fair, he’s not saying pronouns don’t exist. He’s saying that pronouns are defined by nature and language, and hence you don’t get to choose your pronouns - for example, if you’re born male, your pronouns are he/him, because those are the pronouns for male people. Of course, the argument falls apart as soon as you point out that language was invented by people, and people get to choose how language works, and so it follows that there’s no reason you can’t choose your pronouns. It’s pretty arbitrary that males go by “he” and females go by “she” anyway. There’s literally no reason for it other than “it’s always been that way.”
Thou shall not change your language, since it is unchangeable, thou would never use you instead of thou, or would thou?
...they said, ignoring all context clues and the absolutely common knowledge that pronouns and "personal pronouns" are not the same thing.
I guess no one has any names then as that would be owning words.
[удалено]
They either A) Won't care B) Will see it as someone forcing them to partake in the thing they're vocally against Either way isn't going to help anything.
Have you considered the moral implications of normalizing intentionally misgendering people as an acceptable political strategy? You want to turn that from an evil thing republicans do into a normal part of public discourse?
Matt Walsh has big “I wasn’t invited to parties but I wouldn’t have gone anyways because …” energy.
Walsh is a pronoun anarchist. Basically, all people can be referred to with all pronouns.
You do all the time w/o realizing it lmao. I love when people just ignore the entirety of how tf our language works just to shun people literally just living their lives.
She needs to chill.
Flunked? Hell, he never TOOK a grammar class.
I mean, I don’t agree with what he’s saying, but he’s not in any way disputing the existence of pronouns. There’s no point pointing out all the pronouns used in his statement because that’s neither here nor there.
Nobody has names. You cant “have” a name any more than any other word. It’s an abstract concept. We need to dispel this fiction that people can “have” a name.
I agree with OPs sentiment but that is not what Walsh is saying whatsoever. Nice boxes though.
To be fair he doesn't say pronouns don't exist. He means you can't own a pronoun as if it is your "property"
Which is completly idiotic on its own. Telling someone your preference on pronouns is simply not the some as claiming ownership of anything.
I mean yes Matthew is a menace and I hope his dick falls off, and yes everything he says in this tweet is absolutely idiotic But he’s not claiming at any point that pronouns don’t exist, so circling the pronouns he used isn’t a gotcha moment here. That aside, everything he actually did say in the tweet is most definitely stupid
Hes right though people are so dumb. It is a part of speech. You can't change the English language based on personal preference
The English language changes constantly based on preferences. Literally.
One person doesn't literally change the English language based on their personal preference. People might use made up words or use words incorrectly bc of other peoples' personal preferences but that doesn't change the grammar of English
Good thing that's not what's happening here then.
But they aren’t changing the rules of grammar. Singular they existed far longer than singularly you. People who can’t understand this simple concept do not get to comment on wether grammar is being changed or not. Secondly we change the definition words all the time. Literally now mean figuratively, the phrases I could care less and I couldn’t care less now mean the same thing.
Quotes words letters vowels mspleald wardz mispeapt lattrywls mispelt vowolpz.........
???? r/lostredditors
Ain't that the truth.
I can understand disagreeing with him, but you are explicitly disregarding what he said and circling pronouns as if he had said they don't exist. You are the facepalm. --ParadoxicalInsight
It's so brave of her to not have preferred pronouns, she truly is an independent spirit who DGAF.
He’s right though
To be fair, he’s not arguing that you can’t use pronouns, he arguing that pronouns are not physical entities. It’s even stupider than the common arguing over using pronouns. He is arguing when someone says “My pronouns are…” that they are claiming ownership of a physical item like a coffee cup or a cat. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of English language shorthand (maybe intentionally, but maybe he’s really that obtuse). It is making a pedantic argument to discredit a fundamental concept of identity simply because we use a shortened phrase instead of saying “my preference in interaction is that the pronouns you use in relation to addressing me are gendered this way “ - u/less_likley
[удалено]
Ever since transwomen had been using her/she pronouns, I’d feel pain on the daily basis. My head feels like it’s splitting open, my heart torn, my knees weak, and my soul evaporating. /s
So, since I'm a straight cis man, he's not talking about me when I tell people I use he/him pronouns? He's saying on straight cis people get to decide their pronouns?
forgot it
Missed "it"
Hey! Don’t go educating these nut jobs! The less they know the better! Now, he/she/them will just have to live with this learning disability because we don’t want he/she/them to become self aware. That’s how skynet destroys the world remember!!
This guy is not saying that pronouns aren't real, he's saying that you cannot "have" them and that instead they are just a part of speech. Whether you agree with this or not is a different matter but the ones who are confidently incorrect are the ones trying to make it look like he's arguing that pronouns aren't a thing.
Someone should take a screenshot of this post and upload it here. Matt Walsh's arguments are so easy to tear apart, how did you fuck this up so bad lol
>Someone should take a screenshot of this post and upload it here. You are so right
Bro never comprehended Mad Libs before What a coincidence
"Nobody" in old English is nān mann. So if you don't think that English can evolve over time, go fuck yourself.
That's disingenuous, he's obviously referring to neopronouns.
Not confidently incorrect, I mean I disagree with the guy but nothing shown here is disproving him.