gughok

Harvard said yes
omg

I got into Boston College!!! 

Harvard said yes
omg

Harvard said yes
omg

Harvard said yes
omg

Harvard said yes
omg

It is amazing how much damage I did when all I wanted to express was a sentiment of hope and good desires to my fellows. Nonetheless, I can not acquiesce with your criticism.
Something that is obsolete or archaic is something that is not commonly done or that has no utility in a contemporary context. I have read and listened contemporary speakers, in many contexts, and I can say that talking as I did is definitively not archaic nor obsolete. The common people, and most of the not so common people, use the "masculine" generic subject, as I did.
You say that you have talked with women complaining about them. I have not. You may think that that is because I live in another place than yours, with another language, and another context. But there are women here too, and the historic discrimination against them was terrible too. Guess what my language is? It is Spanish, a language where that "masculine" generic element is not only in the subject, but in half of the sentences, including many that talk about objects, and the plural third persons.
Yet I have not ever listened nor read a single complain, from the common people, and most of the not so common people, about the genre of the generic subjects. In fact, the only people that I have read complaining about it are SOME feminist persons.
You say that the women are conditioned to feel like that, while men are not, but all the women I have met does not seem to feel like that -and all of them speak like that-.
Yes, of course, it might be different, and you may say that I am not living in USA's society, but I have been there, and I have read and listened a lot of things produced there, and yet I do not find that complain nor that discrimination feeling when they talk like that. Yes, I have read this complain before, but only, again, from SOME feminist persons.
So, all this makes me believe that you are right, perhaps, in that people feel offended by something if they are educated to feel offended by it. And in fact, in my own experience in life, the only people that feel offended by this way of talking are SOME feminist persons. And I insist in saying SOME, because not every feminist I have met acts like that. I think, therefore, that the origin of the feeling of offence is their feminist education, and if something needs to be changed is their predisposition to feel offended for it.
In fact, the offensiveness of language exists only because the speakers believe in it, and a "profanity" is only a profanity because the people give it the quality of being offensive. In this case, I see that a very specific set of people -the feminists of the difference- are feeling offended by that kind of language, as they are the only ones that attribute it implications of "superiority of men" and "detriment of women", even if the people talking does not think those things. And I see that they try to convince other people to join them in their modification of language. But, in my sincere opinion, I feel it is very unfair to force everyone else to talk like they like only because they feel offended for something.
I may have something against the word "between", perhaps my dog died trapped "between" a car and a road, so I feel very sad and offended when someone uses the word "between", because it makes me cry as I remember my poor dog smashed between those things. However, you would call me silly if I started a campaign to remove that word from the dictionary and ban it from the books, forcing everybody to say "betwixt" instead, as that would be the only alternative that would not hurt my feelings.
This is the same problem. Some persons are feeling offended for some kind of language, and they try to change it, but the truth is that the common speakers do not feel offended by it, including most women, and that is the case until those feminist educate other persons to feel offended by that. I call this absurd, and I even dare to remark that perhaps those feminists are doing more harm to the women that the common speakers that use the generic masculine subject, because those women would have never felt offended if it weren't for those feminists. They taught them to feel bad about it.
Yes, you can play with the words and form a sentence whose meaning be clearly offensive for women due to its use of the generic masculine subject. But that is only made on purpose, and it is evident when someone does it that way; no one else use it thinking it is going to be offensive.
And this takes me to another important detail that you have not thought about: Is it not unfair to attribute meanings or implications to the words of the people when they are clearly not trying to give those meanings or implications? Is it not against the philosophy and the logic to act like that? Because that seems, to my best logical interpretation, an fallacy; you are changing the meanings of the words of the person you are criticising.
Yes, it MIGHT be discouraging and disheartening to read a description that uses only "he"/"him"/"his", and so one in every situation imaginable, for some people -specially those feminist persons-, but that those not make it better to refrain from using the male pronoun INDISCRIMINATELY (what a irony this adjective is!). I should not modify all my speech and my thoughts -because I talk in my thoughts too- only because some people feel offended by it, there should be more to think about before proceeding to make this modification.
Most people would feel offended if you told them that they are wrong, I have seen that before, but would you agree then to modify your language in such a manner that no one ever, in even the most indirect and unintended way, in any possible situation, feel that they might be wrong in what they believe after listening anything you say? I would not.
I am more worried about the "orwellian" nuances that the feminist speech is taking, and how facile is to make some people -specially some "philosophers" (ironically)- acquiesce with whatever they say or order.

Harvard said yes
omg

Harvard said yes
omg

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.
And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.
Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.
And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.
Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.
And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.
Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

Out of upvotes, +1. My reaction to every "surprise" of this sort: suck it, prescriptivist grammarians. You should never have left the 18th century. As a linguist, your existence vexes me.

At least from my perspective, it's both an emotional safety measure and an offering of information to others. In the former capacity, it keeps me from wondering whether I'm really going to get in someplace when I can focus my attention elsewhere. I'd much rather think "well, it's probably bad news with Yale" than "oh god oh god Yale please oh please", at least in the long term. In the latter capacity, if someone sees such a signature they can derive the information that somebody has heard from Yale. So it's also a utility I try to offer others.

Prescriptivist here. I don't think there's anything incompatible with being a prescriptivist and advocating for the singular use of "they." There's a positive use behind such a change. What prescriptivists are opposed to are unnecessary or degenerative changes to language. For example, losing the subjunctive in subjunctive cases: I wish I were at the party --> I was I was at the party.  Or, losing subtle distinctions between words that provide the richness in our language which are lost if we muddle and conflate words together: From Funk & Wagnalls "Difficult is not used of that which merely taxes physical force; a dead lift is called hard rather than difficult; breaking stone on the road would be called hard rather than difficult work; that is difficult which involves skills, sagacity, or address, with or without a considerable expenditure of physical force; a geometrical problem may be difficult to solve, a tangled skein to unravel; a mountain difficult to ascend."

bt l0l l@ngge b wt 1t b3, l3ts n0 grmmr.

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.
And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.
Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

Out of upvotes, +1. My reaction to every "surprise" of this sort: suck it, prescriptivist grammarians. You should never have left the 18th century. As a linguist, your existence vexes me.

No, it does not. As the other readers have already recognised, I was talking about a "generic" subject, so there was not ambiguity and much less such an implication. The discourse was specific and understandable, at least in its use of pronouns, and the proof is that they, the same people that objected, clearly understood, and I bet you did too.

Sure, so at MIT the philosophy and linguistics department are the same. My friend is doing her linguistics phd but she overheard them saying that the phil admissions committee would be meeting tomorrow at 3, and sent me a message. I asked her if she thought they'd be finalizing their decisions then, and she said if the process was anything like linguistics she expected them to be. That, combined with the prediction date, leads me to believe that at the earliest, tomorrow evening they might be releasing. It's possible they may need to meet again, but honestly I doubt it considering past release dates. 

I have a friend at the MIT department, she said they're having their adcomm meeting tomorrow at 3  Tomorrow it is!  

Hi!  I'm one of them! (was trying to avoid looking at this website obsessively but just gave up haha).  So excited!!

You guys, I was on the train this morning, heading to the library to get some work done, and I looked down and there was an adhesive label lying right between my feet on the floor of the car that read CREMATED REMAINS and if that experience isn't a metaphor for my whole life right now, I don't know what is.

This is absurd. Another weekend of suspense.

I would refrain from this interpretation. The poster was likely from a country (not gonna name names) where cheating on the GRE is common, and hence it was likely standard policy to request, in a live exchange, that the applicant confirm the validity of their scores. Given the 165/157/4.50 admit to Yale posted just two places down, I'd venture to say that GREs are, as usual, not of paramount importance here.