@beardalaxy just ignoring it is the correct approach imo

@matrix @beardalaxy nothing evil about ignoring non existent problems

@EvilCorp1988 @matrix No, it's not the Mangela Effect and it's not just you. There is a concerted effort to force the fundamental English tongue to accommodate Sodomites and androgynizers.

This has been done before with feminist academics, teachers, and writers heavily desexualizing of the language in the early and mid-20th Century to cater to feminism.

@SuperSnekFriend @EvilCorp1988 @matrix This is what Webster's 1828 dictionary says

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/them
Screenshot 2023-08-17 at 10-33-11 Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Them.png

@Arkana @SuperSnekFriend @matrix @EvilCorp1988 Websters was kiked from day one so this doesn’t surprise me.

EDIT: My mistake. See later post.

@caekislove @SuperSnekFriend @matrix @EvilCorp1988 It's very good for reference of older attitudes. I suggest you check out the site and look at some definitions

@Arkana @caekislove @EvilCorp1988 @SuperSnekFriend @matrix that's also not remotely a support for 'they/them as a personal pronoun'. It doesn't even go into how frequently or when it's used outside of a single Bible quote and a longish section on how dumb illiterate rubes abuse it.

@apropos @EvilCorp1988 @SuperSnekFriend @caekislove @matrix Yes, them is used as a plural to a group of mixed sex people or when sex is not explicit. Pronouns are never personal, because other people are the ones that say them about an individual.

@apropos @EvilCorp1988 @SuperSnekFriend @caekislove @matrix It also has this one
Screenshot 2023-08-17 at 10-51-21 Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Themselves.png

@caekislove @Arkana @matrix @EvilCorp1988 tl;dr That entry is not defining "they" as trannies define it.

1. I don't think Noah Webster is defining "them" in the way trannies or modern "Webster" are defining the word. There is no mention of an indefinite pronoun where the sex of a person is unknown. The vulgar colloquial use ("them bear", "them horses", etc) is just that, colloquial and not even relevant.

2. A dictionary's primary role is descriptive; that is, describing how the common people of the day use the common tongue. While dictionaries can offer a proscriptive role on word and grammar usage, and often hide that role like we have seen with "vaccines" or terms of marriage, there is nothing within this entry to suggest Webster wrote it for proscription. He did write proscriptive entries and said so, but these were limited to important foundational concepts and words related to the Bible and Christian religion, philosophy, and politics.

3. The only place where the form "they" is said to be indefinite is when referring to dictation ("They often say life is like a box of chocolates.") This indefinite use is also implied to be inherently collective or plural, as "they" in that statement can refer to any number of anyone; in that sense, this indefinite is not like how trannies abuse the word and cannot be said to be the predecessor of a singular "they/them".

Samuel Johnson, writing several decades earlier, agreed with this:
johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=they

4. All else considered, calling Noah Webster kiked, when he helped found the American tongue, is slander. The kiked version of Webster's dictionary came in the 1930's when the G & C Miriam company issued a revision of their original 1909 "International" revision of Noah Webster's 1826 dictionary, which they held the rights for since the 1840's.

Before you ask, the original George and Charles Miriam were not Jews.

@SuperSnekFriend @Arkana @matrix @EvilCorp1988 Good point. Both of the examples from the Bible are plural, as well. I stand corrected.

@caekislove @Arkana @matrix @EvilCorp1988 The singular indefinite "they" is fitting, wrong morally, aesthetically, and linguistically, but very fitting for our age of absurdity. Webster's culture could easily define individual men as men and women as women and had a grammar and code of formality to avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding between people.

Our culture, which cares little for defining the sexes properly, and less about formality, seeks to find a way to grasp societal and personal concepts voided by a self-destructive religion. While academics and trannies may have started the singular "they" out of malice, normalfags and mid-wits perpetuate the stupid meme because they themselves cannot fully define other people like the past cultures could; after all, we have not been defining fundamental words and concepts carefully and according to Scripture or sound reason the past few decades, so why not one more fundamental word of our tongue?

@SuperSnekFriend @EvilCorp1988 @matrix in the 90’s they used to trip over themselves hastily adding a “- or she“ any time they used a hypothetical ‘he’. The olds still carry that habit today after years of practice.

Used to be that you’d hear gendered talk depending on what you were talking about. Describing a technical process to extract oil? You’re talking about an unnamed “He”. Talking about a sewing machines or delicate handiwork? “She” would come naturally.

@WashedOutGundamPilot @EvilCorp1988 @matrix Yup, and that kind of fuckery has fucked with translating and interpreting the Bible itself. Hebrew and Greek use collective masculine-gendered nouns and pronouns often to refer to both men and women, who were under men's authority and care, as the Israelite and Graeco-Roman societies were patriarchal. The 70's are when certain translations began to de-emphasize those masculine collective terms in favor of "inclusive" language.

Naturally, that sexually linguistic rot that started then began in the late 90's to seep into more important matters, like the language referring to God Himself, see the NIV controversy. Not even the ESV is safe. While it does keep those masculine collective terms, it adds constant footnotes saying, "this term in context could refer to just males or to males and females" and such. That is not a problem per se and is needed in our sexually confused society, but it does subconsciously reinforce the rot started decades ago.

The greatest irony is that the words were more gender neutral when they only referred to men, if you talked about "the nature of Man" you were talking about men and women, if you talked about "the history of Mankind" you were still talking about men and women.

Now if you talk about 'humans' and 'humanity' you're talking about fictional sodomites, and if you're talking about 'men' then you're only talking about men.

@udongle @SuperSnekFriend @matrix @EvilCorp1988 Have this talk w/ fem pilots a lot. There’s far more honor in bein an “airman”, with all the years of history that entails, than a “pilot”

@EvilCorp1988 @matrix
the good old days: binary sex, most people assumed male unless specified otherwise. 'They/them' only used in rare cases where you're being so vague that not just sex but even the number of actors is left unstated.
by the 2000s: "Give his or her bottle of milk to his or her parent." Explicitly generic sex. Don't assume maleness. Some authors took the path of creating explicitly-sexed anonymous parties (the programmer is female, the tech writer is female), just to avoid this bullshit.
also by the 2000s: total abortion of new sex-neutral pronouns. "Give pers bottle of milk to pers parents". These never caught on and the most popular had unwanted specific-sex connotations.
2015: gay marriage is forced onto the United States by the courts, in defiance of the electorate. All the social warriors move onto new fights.
2016-now: abusive unnatural and just fucking ugly emphasis on they/them, personal pronouns, 'treeself' comedy pronouns, and trannies

The only way to stop this flood of filth is to ban gay marriage.

@sjw I know