[seletz]

I guess the point developer2 tried to make is that the parent poster's language is very non-personal.

This is a common thing -- by not seeing the victim as a person/human it's way easier to rationalize whatever ideology etc. you might have.

Sorry, not a native speaker -- can't put it better :p

[vacri]

I disagree. I think when you're talking about someone you don't personally know that's in the public eye, you should use their surname if you're trying to make a clear point. I noticed it when I saw my own nation's male politicians always mentioned in the media by their surname, and the female politicians referred to by first name if the media outlet didn't like them. It was a way of robbing them of respect.

As a tech parallel, Gates and Jobs aren't generally referred to in articles by their first name, even when their identity has been established.

Just refer to everyone in the same way and you level the playing field, I find. If you have a personal connection, sure, bend the rule. But using a first name without having a personal connection usually robs the public figure of a bit of power.

[grkvlt]

Interestingly, when talking about SpaceX, the CEO is almost always 'Elon' rather than 'Musk', and I'm sure there's some sort of point that could be made about that...

[ptaipale]

That is rather to the point when we talk about a military person who's acting in his military role: the style of communication tends to be very impersonal.

I learned to know a friend in the army (went through NCO and officer schools with him and was always in the same accommodation rooms because our last names began the same) and later have seen him with family (our kids are grown up by now). It took me a good while to feel natural about referring to him by his first name, because the army way was to use the last name.

[street]

Or it could be a way to make sure responses wouldn't derail towards the correct pronoun to use.

I read developer2's response as being very presumptuous and prepossessed, and was wondering why.