[themodelplumber]

> LMBTQ movement has came into my mind immediately. I think they would have more success by introducing a new, 'don't care about your sex' pronoun to the language instead of adding a third one that just complicates matters.

I thought it was more of a pro-caring thing than a pro-uncaring thing.

Those focusing too much on the latter are really quite good at bumbling into insulting behavior...

[lez]

Slippery slope fallacy here. Why should I care if my online customer is he/she/they as long as they pay the price? Or if I talk about technology through the Internet? All I want is effective communication with no insults.

[themodelplumber]

Is this meant to describe how a slippery slope forms, or call one out?

Effective communication involving other people only sometimes overlaps with this subjective-first, transactional approach, the: I care about, I talk about, or All I want is.

(It's a great view for designing a specific type of community, with business-transactional perspective + valuing of tightening subjective logic and avoiding fallacy. Well, this will always result in a specific type of tech community with some special focus on business and economic factors as combined with tech.)

And I guess if we effectively cherry-pick the premise, with straw people assuming their various positions on the stage, we can easily justify a more anonymizing, transactional view of language. "This is how I prefer to view my life, therefore the needed language looks like..."

In this view, language doesn't need all that extra stuff. Keep it direct, functional, logical, and avoid fallacies especially.

But this isn't really getting at the relating capabilities of language for example, like when there are bigger problems at hand and diverse mindsets working together to solve them.

Instead, it ends up bringing minds into silos, as broader personality theory predicts. So the I, I, me, is really more about self-support.

With this view, individuals effectively make relating all about the subjective-them 24/7, and about whether they are good/not good. They see relating with others as "we will each be our best and get what we each want" as if it's a universal creed. The one philosophy that just makes sense. Do others even exist?

And is this actively mean? No. Perhaps a better term is effectively: "passively careless," to borrow a phrase from Sabine Hossenfelder. And even in the subjective-first view it still does not make for a high-quality individual, which is also bad news.

It's unfortunate, because not only does this view raise the stakes on their end with no good reason, creating things like martyrdom issues, but it also perpetuates the avoidance of effective contact with others, effectively making "others" the persistent bête noir.

[scotty79]

In many languages you are obligated to care whether a table is a he or a she.

In English you are obligated to care whether it's a table or the table.

I'm all for languages with optional caring about stuff.