this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
232 points (92.3% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

1404 readers
540 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

... why?

Is that any more absurd than "reducing males to he/him" or "reducing females to she/her"?

It's language, not a campaign medal. You don't need a separate example for every instance.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

The whole point of pronouns, I would argue, is to not need a separate set for every instance.

Otherwise you may as well just use Dan/Dan/Dan's/Danself conjugated for each name.

Pronouns:

  • Are (generally) shorter than names, because there's less need for them to be unique and they're used more frequently.

  • Can be used even when you don't know specifics about a person or object, or they don't want to give out their name.

  • Everyone knows how to conjugate them, so once you know someone is a 'they', you can readily extrapolate to them, their, theirs.