4 ms·

Pronouns are generally used to refer to someone in the third-person. Most of the time they are used when referring to a person not present in the conversation.

Pronouns are generally used to refer to someone in the third-person. Most of the time they are used when referring to a person not present in the conversation. Why should I be dictated or forcefully compelled to refer to a person by a pronoun that does not match my interpretation of them? And how far does this go? We've already seen the emergence of neo-pronouns, i.e. frog-self, bunny-self, kitten-self, etc. The cultural shift in the past 10 years gives credence to previously dismissed slippery slope arguments. And lastly, why is the neoliberal and corporate world supporting this so fervently?

version_five 3y ago
> And lastly, why is the neoliberal and corporate world supporting this so fervently? Because of the insane amount of power this behavior confers. In this story it escalated into a VP getting fired. It's a given that if there's that kind of power to be had, it's going to be pursued.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Disagree completely. It’s pridewashing - hey ignore our bad corporate behavior or poor product strategy - we support LGBTQ! It’s the same schtick they use when greenwashing.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Firing the VP for such a transgression is a good way to virtue-signal about how much they "support LGBTQ", so I'm not sure how much this actually disagrees with the parent?
    - r00fus 3y ago
      Firing the VP isn't the goal, in fact it's detrimental to it. The goal is to make others think that the company is doing "good" by its employees and society, so we ignore the company's mis-steps.
Incipient 3y ago
I think like anything in life, it's shades of grey. If someone wants to swap gender, or I suppose go by "they" sure whatever. Good for them, or bad for them, honestly I don't really care, you do you. If i have to walk around the office saying "oh kitten-self is over there" that's a tad extreme. In the same way companies have a sensible approach to say swearing, they need one here too.
- kaba0 3y ago
  No sane person demands the latter, but failing to do the former is just being a shitty person. As always, people take shit to extremes. We should not throw out the idea itself just because those extremists.
  - AdrianB1 3y ago
    "No true Scotsman" ... But then you do it again, based on what? Why the first is sane and why the second is not? Who decides that?
  - George83728 3y ago
    Today, you can say that people who think themselves kittens aren't sane and most people won't disagree with you. 20 years ago you could say that men who think themselves women aren't sane, and most people wouldn't disagree with you. Who can say what the future will hold in store for our culture. I know it seems unlikely now, even farcical like an argument being made in bad faith, but that's how it always is.
Nextgrid 3y ago
> why is the neoliberal and corporate world supporting this so fervently? Because a large chunk of the modern corporate world is trash that relies on "growth & engagement", thus extremely vulnerable to public opinion, which a vocal minority is successfully exploiting - some with legitimate beliefs, but I'm sure a lot of it is virtue-signalling. If you don't explicitly embrace it (thus even having a merely neutral opinion is not enough), you are therefore considered one of the bad guys and deserving of ostracism. Worse, this stuff is contagious, and those who are risk-averse better at least pretend to embrace it (and virtue-signal to prove how "inclusive" and "supportive" you are) lest they be mistaken for a bad guy (even if their genuine opinions are internally supportive of the cause, but they'd rather keep politics and beliefs outside of work/business for example).
Balgair 3y ago
I work with a few people that you may be referring to and have friends like that too. I use the pronouns that they request. Why? Because I'm not a jerk. Sure, if I wanted to make a stink, I could. Do I have my own opinions? Yeah, of course. But making a stink is not going to help anyone. Putting my own opinions aside (whatever they may be) and being kind is the only path forward that keeps communication open and honest. As to your last question, it's all about the $$$. Deflect attention to culture war problems and pick the pockets. That old LBJ quote, but they've figured out how to do it for the progressives as well as the racists.
scampy 3y ago
I believe it all stems from ESG investing principles: firms are incentivized to pander to these ETFs who have mandates indirectly trickling down from the biggest players in the market (who have taken on the moral obligation to establish and distribute our system of ethics via capital allocation). So then what is behind this ESG investing movement? Probably something sinister. nbd.

version_five 3y ago

> And lastly, why is the neoliberal and corporate world supporting this so fervently? Because of the insane amount of power this behavior confers. In this story it escalated into a VP getting fired. It's a given that if there's that kind of power to be had, it's going to be pursued.

r00fus 3y ago
Disagree completely. It’s pridewashing - hey ignore our bad corporate behavior or poor product strategy - we support LGBTQ! It’s the same schtick they use when greenwashing.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Firing the VP for such a transgression is a good way to virtue-signal about how much they "support LGBTQ", so I'm not sure how much this actually disagrees with the parent?
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Firing the VP isn't the goal, in fact it's detrimental to it. The goal is to make others think that the company is doing "good" by its employees and society, so we ignore the company's mis-steps.

Incipient 3y ago

I think like anything in life, it's shades of grey. If someone wants to swap gender, or I suppose go by "they" sure whatever. Good for them, or bad for them, honestly I don't really care, you do you. If i have to walk around the office saying "oh kitten-self is over there" that's a tad extreme. In the same way companies have a sensible approach to say swearing, they need one here too.

kaba0 3y ago
No sane person demands the latter, but failing to do the former is just being a shitty person. As always, people take shit to extremes. We should not throw out the idea itself just because those extremists.
- AdrianB1 3y ago
  "No true Scotsman" ... But then you do it again, based on what? Why the first is sane and why the second is not? Who decides that?
- George83728 3y ago
  Today, you can say that people who think themselves kittens aren't sane and most people won't disagree with you. 20 years ago you could say that men who think themselves women aren't sane, and most people wouldn't disagree with you. Who can say what the future will hold in store for our culture. I know it seems unlikely now, even farcical like an argument being made in bad faith, but that's how it always is.

Nextgrid 3y ago

> why is the neoliberal and corporate world supporting this so fervently? Because a large chunk of the modern corporate world is trash that relies on "growth & engagement", thus extremely vulnerable to public opinion, which a vocal minority is successfully exploiting - some with legitimate beliefs, but I'm sure a lot of it is virtue-signalling. If you don't explicitly embrace it (thus even having a merely neutral opinion is not enough), you are therefore considered one of the bad guys and deserving of ostracism. Worse, this stuff is contagious, and those who are risk-averse better at least pretend to embrace it (and virtue-signal to prove how "inclusive" and "supportive" you are) lest they be mistaken for a bad guy (even if their genuine opinions are internally supportive of the cause, but they'd rather keep politics and beliefs outside of work/business for example).

Balgair 3y ago

I work with a few people that you may be referring to and have friends like that too. I use the pronouns that they request. Why? Because I'm not a jerk. Sure, if I wanted to make a stink, I could. Do I have my own opinions? Yeah, of course. But making a stink is not going to help anyone. Putting my own opinions aside (whatever they may be) and being kind is the only path forward that keeps communication open and honest. As to your last question, it's all about the $$$. Deflect attention to culture war problems and pick the pockets. That old LBJ quote, but they've figured out how to do it for the progressives as well as the racists.

scampy 3y ago

I believe it all stems from ESG investing principles: firms are incentivized to pander to these ETFs who have mandates indirectly trickling down from the biggest players in the market (who have taken on the moral obligation to establish and distribute our system of ethics via capital allocation). So then what is behind this ESG investing movement? Probably something sinister. nbd.