3 ms·

This baffled me as well. The US may not grant titles of nobility, but it has an awful lot of other titles that are given and used similarly; in my experience ty

by ruytlm 7y ago

This baffled me as well. The US may not grant titles of nobility, but it has an awful lot of other titles that are given and used similarly; in my experience typically military ranks, or former political office titles. Also, Ive's title may not have been awarded by the US, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be acknowledged in what is an official piece of communication from one of the worlds largest companies. To be facetious, one could also say that it is a surprise to hear outrage at the use of 'Sir' given that everyone in the US seems to call everyone else 'sir' or 'ma'am' all the time.

_jal 7y ago
There is a tradition of anti-nobility sentiment in US culture as old as, well, the US. It is literally written into the Constitution[1]. How much you were exposed to it probably depends on where you grew up; I think it is louder in the north east, and I don't hear it much in California. Personally, I am more annoyed at being sir-ed constantly. I much prefer to reserve it as a genuine term of respect, not a generic form of address. [1] Article I, section 9.
- bin0 7y ago
  > I think it is louder in the north east Loud in the South, certainly. That's how I was raised, and it's used as a respectful, though somewhat common/generic, term of address. I don't know that I or many Americans would be comfortable with the social implications of referring to some one as "sir" out of respect the way you describe it; it implies superiority rather than respect.
ronilan 7y ago
The “Titles of Nobility Amendment” [1] to the constitution was never ratified by the states (though it did pass Congress), and the Canadian Nickle Resolution [2] was never enacted as a law, but the idea they convey is as clear and as valid today as it was back then. I have never seen any mention of this issue in public forums, so I think it is good that Gruber brings it up. And I kind of like how succinctly he puts it: Fuck this “sir” shit. We don’t have titles in America. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_titles_debate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_titles_debate

by ruytlm 7y ago

_jal 7y ago

There is a tradition of anti-nobility sentiment in US culture as old as, well, the US. It is literally written into the Constitution[1]. How much you were exposed to it probably depends on where you grew up; I think it is louder in the north east, and I don't hear it much in California. Personally, I am more annoyed at being sir-ed constantly. I much prefer to reserve it as a genuine term of respect, not a generic form of address. [1] Article I, section 9.

bin0 7y ago
> I think it is louder in the north east Loud in the South, certainly. That's how I was raised, and it's used as a respectful, though somewhat common/generic, term of address. I don't know that I or many Americans would be comfortable with the social implications of referring to some one as "sir" out of respect the way you describe it; it implies superiority rather than respect.

ronilan 7y ago

The “Titles of Nobility Amendment” [1] to the constitution was never ratified by the states (though it did pass Congress), and the Canadian Nickle Resolution [2] was never enacted as a law, but the idea they convey is as clear and as valid today as it was back then. I have never seen any mention of this issue in public forums, so I think it is good that Gruber brings it up. And I kind of like how succinctly he puts it: Fuck this “sir” shit. We don’t have titles in America. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_titles_debate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_titles_debate