Cainntear wrote: ... I asserted that those beliefs lead to repression and suppression, which is taken pretty much as fact by most of current academia.
Cainntear wrote: ... It's not about beliefs, it's about outcomes. If something demonstrably leads to the marginalisation of certain groups of people in the workplace or the education system, it really doesn't matter what people's intentions are -- the bomb still explodes.
Apparently, my exposition of “prescritophobia” was insufficiently clear. What I find most irksome is the
absolutist position adopted by the hard-line, extremist wing of the descriptivist theorists. The "base position" of the absolutists suggests a belief system grounded in thoughts of persecution, threat, and conspiracy.
The mere support of such an insignificant matter as “there’re” in the plural is taken as irrefutable evidence of either complacency in face of, or actual complicity with, a complete body of thought which may, but which just as easily may not, lead to undesirable outcomes. There is the assumption that the process is
ineluctable. No other outcome is even remotely possible. Intelligent human beings are assumed to be incapable of recognizing the correct use of “there’re” in the plural without being simultaneously and irrecoverably complicit in unjustifiable discriminatory practices. This outcome is offered as a known, widely-held, indisputable “fact”, a matter which is not open to discussion. Debating this, or any other, absolutist “fact” (a matter which I refuse to be dragged into) is a belligerent act which justifies a vigorous counter-offensive.
In my view, the
absolutist, hard-line, extremist wing of the descriptivist theorists view the world in astonishingly stark terms, they are incapable of the slightest nuance. They are the maximalist’s maximalists. Like many others holding extreme political, ideological, or religious views, they believe that they possess the "One and only Truth" and that anyone who does not share their views is evil personified. Everyone is a combatant and the only choice open to the individual is on "which side" of this epic struggle he will take his "final stand."
This
fourth iteration of the “there’re in the plural” bun-fight
was, apparently, avoidable. In the end, only two buns were tossed, the same ones as in the last three derailings.
Cainntear, you may wish to continue espousing your absolutist position. I’m going to spread a measure of salted butter on
my bun and I'm going to eat it. That is, I’m done throwing it at you ... this time around.