The country is breaking apart but I guess is more important to avoid using feminine expressions on official papers that make us look homo or something

  • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If he was actually “libertario liberal” like he keeps saying, he’d allow people to use whatever type of language they want.

    I guess he’s not an anarcho capitalist, but a fucking conservative slimesack and all round crazy person wielding a chainsaw and talking to dogs for political advice (NB : what I just said can be fact checked and verified, and is not a joke)

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      a fucking conservative slimesack

      Yes, that is exactly what ancaps and libertarians turns out to be when in any power. It’s an Actually Existing Libertarianism.

  • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Inclusive language is the dumbest fucking thing anyone tried to do to the Spanish language. For those not familiar, Spanish is a gendered language, words ending in -o are male and words ending in -a are female (not a steadfast rule there are tons of exceptions). “Academics” with too much time want to change words to a gender neutral ending -e. And it sounds so fucking stupid.

    • dirkgentle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      As a native Spanish speaker, inclusive sounds a little goofy, but overall seems pretty harmless to me.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I guess the same about Polish, this language is incredibly gendered and while the neutral gender does exist, it’s a rump of it because it’s only used for some inanimate objects, some animals and small babies, it is also not used at all in 1st nor 2nd person - so the mere usage of neutral form for a person automatically implies lack of agency and is a grave insult (also it became specifically transphobic insult thank to few jerks in the parliament). Language also default to masculine in case of unknown gender. So if a Pole randomly calls anyone “him” in the internet it’s not necessarily purposeful misgendering, it’s just how language works while English would default to neutral form - it’s also one of the more common mistake in Polish translations of English books.

        But even here some efforts has been made.

    • Dieguito 🦝@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Spanish speakers could have dropped all the final vowels and basically speak Catalan “los ciudadanos” > “els ciutadans”, easy! two problems (gender inclusivity and secession of Catalonia) solved at once…/s

        • Dieguito 🦝@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          You are right, I don’t speak Catalan and I was trying to downplay a little on a topic which is dramatic (not for the language per se but for the people who can be hurt by it). Auxlangs, being designed for a purpose, could make some little more effort towards inclusiveness. And that would be one of the few reason to prefer them to natlangs (e.g. for institutional communications).

        • leftzero@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, some Catalan politicians say “els ciutadans i les ciutadanes”, much like some Spanish politicians say “los ciudadanos y las ciudadanas”. Romance languages tend to have gendered nouns (and by extension articles). 🤷‍♂️

        • Jojo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Tsk, tsk, this willow wants to get rid of THE definite article, but they’re too afraid to even say it.

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It doesn’t matter to me, but I understand that the prohibition applies to official documents (which frankly seems fine to me because they have to be as neutral as possible) and nothing more.

    It’s not that for saying “TODES” in an AFIP department they’re going to cut you off.

    Basically, you can talk like a mental retard if you want, but in official communication a certain degree of professionalism and correctness is expected.

    In the same way that an official document should never say “tipo asi como ke ah re que la ley esta que zakamos esta ree picada perro, se prohibe la letra EEE” If you want to talk like that, you donyou, in official settings, NO.

    The best thing is that the 2,000 departments of the state stop spending on “educational” resources. Don’t forget that there is gender management secretary, which is 50 people per entity because it is required some type of gender graduate to “authorize” that the communication is correctly following the norms on a gender focus.

    Well, no, now it is not necessary to spend a fortune on “educational” resources.

    Waste of money like few others

    But muh freedomz!

    Don’t take “freedom” as an absolute of “ah, so I can do whatever I want ña ña”. The regulations still exist. In this case because the official documents are written in the official language. Not with idioms, not with slang, not with emojis, not with cartoons, not with colloquial language.

    And that doesn’t make you “less free.”

    If someone in public administration wants to write text message style documentation? They can’t, is that going against freedom? No.

    But it is not prohibiting freedom in a private sphere, it is in official documents. If tomorrow at work I start writing technical documentation in Esperanto, they will put a bullet in my ass.

    So, no brother, you can’t write public documents however you want, because everyone has to understand you. It’s a job. Inclusive language promotes a political agenda that the voters of this government do not share.

    The big problem Kirchnerists have behind this is that inclusive language ended up becoming Kirchnerist language. It became something of the party’s identity. If the intention had really been to change the way people express themselves, the strategy of sticking it to specifically this party didn’t work. They should have sought followers across the political spectrum.