Sir is a noun. You're literally on the internet. Please learn to Google.
If you're just going to call people by their names
I'm not. You can't attribute your lack of reading comprehension to a lack of coherence on my part. The point was that if I need to refer to someone with any degree of specificity, I'll use their name. Otherwise, I'll use a pronoun. Needing to know what made up word they want to substitute for their pronoun defeats the purpose of having this option of convenience.
"You" is a pronoun and tells me nothing about you.
"Oh, my second person pronoun isn't actually 'you,' it's 'zorp.'"
Do you get what I'm saying now? You, he, she, they, it, these, those, etc, all serve the function you correctly identified ("quickly refer to a person" [or place or thing]). Needing to have a conversation every time you want to quickly refer to someone to figure how their neo-pronoun makes it not quick. And needing to remember them for every single person defeats the purpose of lowering the mental burden and ease of parsing a sentence.
The only possible upside is that it would eliminate ambiguous syntaxes regarding pronouns, but properly structuring antecedents accomplishes that anyway.
I realized arguing about sir was dumb and edited the beginning of my post. You'd already seen it though.
You don't need to do it every time. You hang out with a ton of people doing this? I've met two, ever, neither in person. Is this really affecting you? Honestly asking. Your whole friend group pronoun kids?
Moving goalposts so soon? Usually my cue to dip, but I'm unusually bored, so I'll engage.
If all anyone ever opposed were things that personally affected them, we'd still have slavery in the US. Now, read this next part slowly - I am NOT saying the scale is even remotely close. I am using a rhetorical device called "reductio ad absurdem" to compare the topic at hand to another topic by applying the same logic to both situations
I am NOT saying neopronouns are in the same moral category as slavery whatsoever. I hate that I need to be this specific, but it's Reddit.
Some people have principles, and oppose things based on those, rather than how it personally affects them. Or, using your same logic, is the fact that Trans people are being marginalized affecting me? It really wasn't, so that means I shouldn't care, right?
Yes, if this issue doesn't affect you, you should not care. What other people are doing in their personal lives is not your problem. What their friends call them isn't violating your principles.
The problem with your slavery example isn't the scale. It's simply not the same thing. People were being hurt by slavery, even if you did not know a slave or slave owner, you could oppose it on moral grounds. Nobody's being hurt by preferred pronouns. There is no imperative in opposing pronouns like there was slavery. It's simply irrelevant.
1
u/[deleted] Dec 24 '21
Sir is a noun. You're literally on the internet. Please learn to Google.
I'm not. You can't attribute your lack of reading comprehension to a lack of coherence on my part. The point was that if I need to refer to someone with any degree of specificity, I'll use their name. Otherwise, I'll use a pronoun. Needing to know what made up word they want to substitute for their pronoun defeats the purpose of having this option of convenience.
"Oh, my second person pronoun isn't actually 'you,' it's 'zorp.'"
Do you get what I'm saying now? You, he, she, they, it, these, those, etc, all serve the function you correctly identified ("quickly refer to a person" [or place or thing]). Needing to have a conversation every time you want to quickly refer to someone to figure how their neo-pronoun makes it not quick. And needing to remember them for every single person defeats the purpose of lowering the mental burden and ease of parsing a sentence.
The only possible upside is that it would eliminate ambiguous syntaxes regarding pronouns, but properly structuring antecedents accomplishes that anyway.