On 06/29/2017 12:49 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>Spivak is personally important to me. I don't think I've overstated
my feelings on this matter in the least.
OK. It's alright to have that.
I don't need your approval.
I'm just curious how that is compatible with what you've stated here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg36544.html
>Inclusivity: Language is part of culture and identity, and I'm not
comfortable codifying Agora's
>culture to be so exclusive. We already have measures against
ambiguity that don't disavow entire
>tongues.
Wouldn't enforcing Spivak be making it "exclusive"? Aren't there other
(potentially culturally-influenced) ways to express yourself? Or are
those not alright if they don't include Spivak?
I wasn't speaking in absolute terms, at some point between 'these words
are prefered' and 'this entire class of communication is the prestige
system' you cross from a difference of degree to a difference of quality
(of course, the line is impossible to really suss out).
We already have prefered words to some degree. 'Reportor' is defined,
but it's not prohibited to use synonyms, translations, circumlocutions,
or encipherments if other players deem them not ambiguous. But if you
constantly avoided keywords, other players might lobby you to stop. In
the same vein, I don't support punishments for not using Spivak, but I'm
still going to lobby for its usage.
Broader terms: Culture and individuality is negotiated between
individuals. When communicating with others, especially when
communiating _about_ them, there needs to be compromise to please both
sides. Speak only how you prefer, and you risk hurting them. Speak only
how they prefer, and you risk hurting yourself.
And the personal note: I'm a single Agoran, so my opinion is ultimately
my own. But Spivak represents inclusivity to me, by circumventing
English's need to either pre-categorize people, or have them explicitly
categorize themselves. Symbolically, losing that system feels like a
loss of an ideal.
