NationStates

viewtopic.php?p=37688495#p37688495

Wallenburg wrote:Judging by the cringeworthy nation name and signature, they probably don't actually want free speech. They just want all opposition to their own beliefs to shut the fuck up, and let them say whatever they want without facing the social consequences for harboring awful beliefs.

Personal attack. Whether or not he or anyone else approves of me.

The rest of the post may also include flamebaiting. I could also add "misgendering", since I am obviously not a "they", but I'll let that one go.

Not actionable.

Neutraligon wrote:Not actionable.

How precisely is that NOT a personal attack?

I agree with my colleague.

The section you've highlighted disagrees with the ideals expressed by your nation name and your signature; there is a clear difference between saying 'MGTOWia is a cringeworthy individual' - which would be a clear flame, and actionable - and 'the nation name and signature are cringeworthy'. Wallenburg is disagreeing with the political opinions expressed via your nation name and signature.

If you were to find yourself disagreeing with a nation called 'FeministUtopia' you would be free to call the nation name 'cringeworthy' on the basis of your (presumed) support for the MGTOW movement.

As to the use of a singular 'they', while it's arguably become more common again recently after a period of relative neglect, it's perfectly correct grammar that's been used in the English language for centuries; if it was good enough for Jonathan Swift, George Bernard Shaw, Jane Austen, and even the King James Bible - among others - it's good enough for NationStates.