zlacker

Why does it matter when the meaning is clear and unambiguous?

>>burkam+(OP)
Why doesn't it?

>>throwa+Z1
Because the point of language is to communicate, and if you've communicated effectively then you're done. What is the history you were referring to? Does using "it" offend some people, or something?

>>burkam+I7
Yes. "It" as a pronoun is used to denigrate marginalized group such as ethnic minorities, individuals who do not adhere to traditional binary gender norms, or other groups that one may wish to, in a way, remove their humanity through pronoun usage. "It," in modern English, is cold, unliving, and reserved for objects rather than living people.

>>burkam+I7
Does it make your communication more effective to structure it in a fashion which distracts from its substance?

>>throwa+U8
No, so I guess I'm asking why you think it distracts from the substance. It seems unambiguously clear to me, and I can't immediately think of a way to take offense, especially in this context where the subject is just an abstract non-specific person.

I get that objectification and dehumanization have been and continue to be huge problems, I just don't see an issue here. If you're talking about a specific person, it's weird and possibly offensive, but that's not the case here.

>>legodt+x8
Ok, I guess I see where you're coming from, although that sort of usage seems almost too over the top to happen in real life. But as I said in another comment, we're not referring to a specific person in this context, we're talking about an abstract human being. Unless there's a risk of denigrating "users of technology" or something, I don't see an issue.

>>burkam+Mb
I think it distracts from the substance because this is the latest comment in a moderately sized and growing conversation which has nothing to do with the substance. To be sure, that conversation is one I started, but consider the possibility that other people, who are unlike me not obstreperous asses, might just quietly ignore whatever you have to say as a result of the linguistic choice with which I've taken such vocal issue.

>>burkam+Fc
> I don't see an issue

Others seem to. It may be worth taking their perspective into account along with your own. But that's your consideration to make.

>>burkam+Fc
Yes (again). It is sadly still very prevalent in trans/genderqueer/genderfucked communities, but I don't quite see the connection to this abstract human/spambot the grandparent was offended by/referring to.

>>legodt+7f
Hardly offended, if it's me you mean there. I just think it's not a good habit to get into.

>>throwa+1d
Yes, I did consider that possibility, that's why I asked. legodt's comment about why it might be offensive is all I was looking for, I genuinely did not think of that interpretation.

>>burkam+Ir
That's reasonable.

I do try to avoid basing arguments on the concept of offense, because there seem to be a lot of people for whom that is a red flag that terminates the possibility of further meaningful discussion, and also because I have some qualms of my own around the way it's used in modern discourse.

I nonetheless feel I should apologize for having, apparently without justice, taken you to be such a person, and felt it necessary as a result to argue with more care, and more circumlocution, than the situation apparently required. I'm sorry for that. Thanks for not being that guy.