6 ms·

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, i

by gcr 5y ago

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 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 :)

blackboxlogic 5y ago
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. Then I read these comments.
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  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.
tomxor 5y ago
But what is the intended purpose? 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bakugo 5y ago
myself248 5y ago
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We It's quite standard usage.
heurisko 5y ago
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.
- user_7832 5y ago
  > 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.
  - pjerem 5y ago
    > 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.
    - user_7832 5y ago
      > 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.
sandworm101 5y ago
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.
fuzzer37 5y ago
> label themselves as plural No
BossingAround 5y ago
> label themselves as plural Definitely contributed to me not finishing the article.
- coolso 5y ago
  Life honestly becomes so much more pleasant when you avoid interacting with the pronouners as much as possible.
  - phs318u 5y ago
    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.
    - bakugo 5y ago
      - phs318u 5y ago
        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? Languages evolve.
        coolso 5y ago
        > 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.

by gcr 5y ago

blackboxlogic 5y ago

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. Then I read these comments.

jiggawatts 5y ago
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.

tomxor 5y ago

But what is the intended purpose? 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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bakugo 5y ago

myself248 5y ago

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We It's quite standard usage.

heurisko 5y ago

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.

user_7832 5y ago
> 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.
- pjerem 5y ago
  > 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.
  - user_7832 5y ago
    > 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.

sandworm101 5y ago

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.

fuzzer37 5y ago

> label themselves as plural No

BossingAround 5y ago

> label themselves as plural Definitely contributed to me not finishing the article.

coolso 5y ago
Life honestly becomes so much more pleasant when you avoid interacting with the pronouners as much as possible.
- phs318u 5y ago
  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.
  - bakugo 5y ago
    - phs318u 5y ago
      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? Languages evolve.
      - coolso 5y ago
        > 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.