34 ms·
I think this is spot on. The confusion for me comes from the fact that, as far as I can tell, I've never met a prig in real life. And yet they seem to be the bi
by nathansherburn 2y ago
I think this is spot on. The confusion for me comes from the fact that, as far as I can tell, I've never met a prig in real life. And yet they seem to be the biggest political issue of our time. Is it because I live in Australia and it's more of a US thing? Or is it because I'm not online as much maybe? I find it really confusing.
- djur 2y agoWhat Graham means by "prig" is, say, an HR person who informs you that you need to use your coworker's preferred pronouns.
- maximilianburke 2y agoIf you're calling a coworker something that they are uncomfortable with enough to get HR involved, HR may be the prigs but you're being an asshole.
- prarro 2y agoYes on a pragmatic basis, if the coworker is male and gets upset at being referred to by "he", but it goes against your own personal beliefs to refer to him as "she", it's best just to refer to him by name and practise wording your sentences to be pronounless. And, where possible and not disadvantageous, to avoid situations where he's involved in your own work. With this approach, he's less likely to make a complaint to HR about you (though he might notice the careful lack of "she", but that's much more difficult to make a substantiated complaint about), and you still get to stick to your own beliefs. It's still somewhat vexing to have to do this, but at least it prevents you from getting in the crosshairs of HR.
- djur 2y agoOr you could just call people what they want to be called when it does not inconvenience you in the slightest.
- prarro 2y ago[flagged]
- djur 2y agoThat analogy doesn't work. A closer analogy would be a vegan refusing to talk to a coworker who eats meat. That would be unacceptable to me, too.
- prarro 2y agoThe analogy in my comment was about adherence to philosophical beliefs, in response to what appeared to be a suggestion by you that such beliefs should be ignored if someone else finds them to be an inconvenience. Could you explain why you think your analogy works, please?
- djur 2y agoA vegan doesn't eat tofu at you. Your right to untrammeled adherence to your philosophical beliefs ends the moment that those beliefs result in conduct affecting other people. After that point, some form of balancing occurs.
- wat10000 2y agoIf it goes against your personal beliefs to call someone what they prefer to be called at no expense to yourself, then you need some new personal beliefs.
- crackercrews 2y agoWhat about neopronouns? Can someone just make up a new set of words like zi / zim / zis and expect you to remember them whenever talking to or about that person?
- djur 2y agoYou already remember what standard pronouns to use to refer to each person in your life. They're words you learned right from the start of learning the language. The same isn't true of "neopronouns".
- crackercrews 2y agoYou seem to be in agreement with my sentiment. There is also additional work in remembering which pronoun to use with which NB person. With most people, you just automatically say the right thing.
- foldr 2y agoWhat have you done so far in cases where a coworker has asked you to refer to them only using a neopronoun?
- crackercrews 2y agoAs others have suggested I just avoid pronouns. This seems to be a common approach.
- foldr 2y agoSeems like a practical solution. So what’s the problem?
- _yb2s 2y agoThat is just basic human decency, not being prig.
- mixmastamyk 2y agoNo, to the whole sibling thread. He’s talking about the “pledge of allegiance” required to get hired in a university or like company, circa 2020. Also posts that imply you’re a monster if you don’t conform. Sticklers for rules are the traditional definition. I think most of us have met a tyrant before, ruler of a very small kingdom. Often in a government position.