I don't want to speculate about Artemis specifically, but first-person plural pronouns to refer to oneself typically isn't a "royal we" or anything like that, it's just what helps some folks feel comfortable, especially those who have DiD or who label themselves as plural. See https://www.reddit.com/r/plural/wiki/index (keywords: "plurality," "multiplicity," ...)
I'm dating someone who refers to themself in the first person plural; it becomes perfectly natural pretty quick :)
I never knew this was a thing. I'm not on board with promoting the use of "we" as a replacement for first person singular as being an acceptable societal norm, unless you're the Queen.
Sorry, but it is too close to contributing to mental health, or personality, disorders for me.
> I never knew this was a thing. I'm not on board with promoting the use of "we" as a replacement for first person singular as being an acceptable societal norm, unless you're the Queen.
Sorry, but it is too close to contributing to mental health, or personality, disorders for me.
Wait until you find about about languages like Hindi where the plural form can be used for respect even when referring to an individual :)
I hadn't realized that calling an individual in plural was even a point of contention until comments on this thread pointed it out (likely because I'm used to it from Hindi). Don't forget, the author may be bi/multilingual.
> Wait until you find about about languages like Hindi where the plural form can be used for respect even when referring to an individual :)
In fact it’s pretty common amongst a lot of languages. Most Latin-derived languages use the plural to show respect. But of course, never to talk about yourself. You’ll use the pluralized form when talking to strangers or to people who are over you hierarchically (but this usage tends to disappear in a lot companies).
As a French, reading someone speaking about itself as "we" is shocking not because it looks like there is multiple people involved (but it also does) but because it looks like the person tries to be "above" you hierarchically. Of course i know it isn’t what’s intended but language interpretation is an automatic mechanism.
> As a French, reading someone speaking about itself as "we" is shocking not because it looks like there is multiple people involved (but it also does) but because it looks like the person tries to be "above" you hierarchically. Of course i know it isn’t what’s intended but language interpretation is an automatic mechanism.
That's interesting, culturally. In India, it's very common for example for people from North India to be much more "pride-based" where individual identity is important and people often use the plural for themselves, while in more southern states there's lesser emphasis and singular is much more common. A lot is dependent on culture.
> Wait until you find about about languages like Hindi where the plural form can be used for respect even when referring to an individual :)
I speak German, which uses uses the plural sie/polite Sie.
It's completely different to "we" being used by an individual to refer to themselves in English.
The fact that a language construct might exist in other languages is irrelevant. Calling a girl "it" in English would similarly be bizarre, although that is the grammar in German.
Something cannot be a disorder unless it causes harm. Things that are not disorders and are out of the ordinary can be considered adaptations and can be advantageous.
Harm to whom? Many things can cause harm to oneself (socially, at least) without harming anyone else. Being odd about your pronouns is one of those things.
Pedantically, there is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" English as there is no standards body that dictates such rules. You can verb any word you want and people will understand what you mean.
You don't have to read the article if it doesn't meet your muster. Why bother caring?
Who's to say it's "incorrect English?" You clearly understood what was said. This person's identity seems like the least interesting and most irrelevant part of this discussion.
After finishing the article, my main take-away was how impressive it is that such a quirky tech setup could work for both of them. I was comparing it to my relationship and how difficult it is to share any item/space which is also customized to either of our preferences. It gave me hope.
I grew up with the ~10 MHz 8086 PC, and I was on bulletin boards and the Internet around the 486 era, still stuck in the "tens of megahertz" era. Even wireframe 3D rendering at 640x480 was glacially slow. CAD applications on a CPU without a floating point unit were just unbelievably painful.
800 MHz and a solid state disk is luxurious if you're not wasteful with it. As the article's author points out, this is "not up to you" ("we"/"us") any more, other people get to decide how much JavaScript to shovel on top of web applications.
It seems ambiguous to me, I was honestly trying to figure out if there was more than one person using the author's laptop, or if it was a multi-author article or something.
Not that English isn't chocked full of ambiguity - I just haven't managed to identify a benefit over using the more commonly accepted "I" here.
I interpreted this as the "editorial we" or perhaps the "author's we":
> The editorial we is a similar phenomenon, in which an editorial columnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium refers to themselves as we when giving their opinion. Here, the writer casts themselves in the role of spokesperson: either for the media institution who employs them, or on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary. The reference is not explicit, but is generally consistent with first-person plural.
I find that sad. Do you also hold that view when interacting with people different in other ways? People that dress differently, hold different political or religious views, people from other places to you?
I have acquaintances who was lyrical on the topic of LGBTQ+ folks, feeling that somehow, non-LGBTQ+ folk are being "oppressed". I keep asking them, "What are they taking from you? What could you do before that you're not allowed to do now?". They typically don't respond or change the topic. We both know that the types of behaviours that are no longer "acceptable" lie on a spectrum that starts with "being casually disrespectful", to outright *ism. It's sad to me that a lot of people value the rights of some to be jerks, over the rights of others to partake equally in society and to feel equally safe and valued in public spaces.
Oh I’m very much supportive of living your life as you see fit. But it’s the pronouners who insist on you using they/them (grammatically silly) or who insist on sharing their pronouns when it’s obvious what they are, then attempting to guilt you into sharing yours even though they know what yours are. This behavior tends to bleed into other annoying personality traits as well.
And yes I do tend to avoid other annoying types of people too, across the spectrum.
> or who insist on sharing their pronouns when it’s obvious what they are, then attempting to guilt you into sharing yours even though they know what yours are.
Don’t worry, you’re already using singular “they” without even realizing!
This argument is always brought up - "it was used centuries ago, so it's still valid now!"
Except: all normal human beings trip up on it; those who believe in the they/them BS trip up on it; and almost no one who uses this argument supports other things that were done centuries ago, so it's not really arguing in good faith.
Arranged marriages at very young ages were a thing centuries ago, should we bring those back?
If you want to use custom pronouns, nobody is stopping you. The rest of the world is just annoyed and tired of hearing you desperately announce it every time we see you and we're not going to play along.
I wasn’t using it as an argument for reverting to some past usage, just pointing out that language and grammar evolve. Just like it evolved away from that usage, it may evolve back.
I find the fact that some people are massively triggered by this fascinating. Personally I’m happy to use whatever pronouns people desire for themselves if they make it clear to me. I get it wrong occasionally cos I have a lifetime of doing something different, but if someone has explicitly made their desire known to me, I’ll make the tiniest effort of referring to them as they wish. It’s not a chore for me. I think of it as being polite to that person.
If I tell you my name is Mike, and prefer to be called that, would you insist on calling me Michael or Micky or Mickster? Even if I told you I was uncomfortable with that (for my own reasons which I don’t have to share with you)?
> every time we see you and we’re not going to play along
Im guessing “we” is not referring to yourself here.
Ugh. Hacker News has traditionally been one of the worst places to discuss queer politics, but reading this has made me feel so frustrated that I can't help but weigh in.
> I find that sad. Do you also hold that view when interacting with people different in other ways? People that dress differently, hold different political or religious views, people from other places to you?
Yep! Ready to get nihilistic? Their existence is pretty much inconsequential to me. Sexuality, gender identity and appearance has quite literally zero bearing on the way I address other people. Unless someone make a concerted effort to be my acquaintance, I will likely forget about their existence within the hour. That doesn't mean I can't sympathize; but the internet has greatly distorted our idea of how important other people actually are. We conflate identity with politics and alliances, we grok importance by follower count and Google search results, it's a disgusting mess that can only be effectively deterred by not caring.
Is it sad? Hard to say, but I certainly feel like it's a less frustrating way to live your life when compared to bending over backwards for everyone. I operate with my own interests at heart; as much as I despise Ayn Rand's philosophy, she wasn't wrong when she said that the greatest minority is the individual.
> I have acquaintances who was lyrical on the topic of LGBTQ+ folks, feeling that somehow, non-LGBTQ+ folk are being "oppressed".
I don't think it's hard to sympathize with that sentiment, even though I'm a gay man myself. I feel embarrassed by the level of entitlement that the rest of the community seems to push, in public and online. A decade ago, the LGBT movement was pretty cut and dried - queer people wanted to integrate into society as normal individuals, without any pretense or opportunity for judgement. In response, they became a protected class and everything was pretty much solved. There hasn't been a legitimate reason to be mad as a gay person since those bakers refused to make a gay wedding cake, and even that only incensed me because it was against the law. As far as I see it, the modern LGBT movement is far too infatuated with liberties that don't exist, and hunting boogeymen that don't care. It makes me ashamed to be queer and wish that I could live in a world where my only identity didn't boil down to "the gay guy".
Which era of English would you like to certify as being the one and only correct English? US English? British English? 20th century, 17th century, or 14th century English?
> Which era of English would you like to certify as being the one and only correct English? US English? British English? 20th century, 17th century, or 14th century English?
How about the one that I personally use, not the one you insist on me using?
> Languages evolve.
Naturally and logically, over time, voluntarily - not through a small subset of the population smugly correcting you and shoving it in your face when they themselves (pun intended) regularly mess up the they/them pronoun BS regularly.
I have heard it from a "sovereign citizen". They seem to use it when wanting to talk about themselves (flesh) inclusive of their various personhoods and corporate entities. I imagine that traffic cops find it unsettling for a lone driver to say "we" are going somewhere, as if there are other people somewhere unseen in the vehicle.
I'm dating someone who refers to themself in the first person plural; it becomes perfectly natural pretty quick :)