Think it is important for people to remove all pronouns from documents. Without, people will be more free to interpret what these messages mean to. This type of malicious compliance will only go so far, sadly.
Comment used it, these, and this. Please remove offensive pronouns, children may be present and children must not learn the english language
children must not learn the english language
Reminds me of…
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.
I’ve said it before, I remember reading this novel as a teen and finding the parts about language to be boring and far-fetched.
Looking back, it was probably one of the most important things that Orwell discussed. That shit is incredibly powerful, and it fundamentally shapes how we think and view the world without us even realizing it.
I had my son read this book. He was partway through and began exclaiming how much it paralleled today.
Hugely pedantic here, but only “it” is a pronoun there (specifically an anticipatory subject, a kind of expletive pronoun), the others are adjectives.
They should replace all pronouns with [redacted].
This is just begging for malicious compliance.
You want to eliminate an entire part of speech? Then good luck trying to understand what the fuck my email is trying to say.
In the article it specifies you to remove pronouns from your email signature. Definitely less fertile ground for malicious compliance, but it’s still doable.
End every email body with “For your response, I am referred to using (feminine/masculine/any/whatever) pronouns”
Replace it with “[Insert Pronouns Here]”. Make sure to have your desk already cleaned out though.
Does the reader want to eliminate an entire part of speech? Then good luck trying to understand what the fuck the writer’s email is trying to say.
Could be fun. I bet ChatGPT could automate it.
DeepSeek can automate it
Does the reader want to eliminate an entire part of speech?
Which one are they going to outlaw next? Verbs? Or Adjectives?
Exactly… Maybe have a boilerplate disclaimer at the top of each email that does include pronouns, just explaining that the following email has had all pronouns removed so as to comply with the new rule.
“The following email has had all pronouns removed in compliance with blah blah blah. Readability has unfortunately, but obviously, been significantly reduced. Apologies will be made available at a later date.”
So is it alright to just assume trump is female? The email signature no longer states her preferred pronouns, so I think this is what she wants?
She did sign that executive order designating everyone as female, too.
I guess Trump doesn’t want to be referred to as He/Him
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-appears-accidentally-declared-every-174749266.html
Hmmm, I see…
- I → (the) speaker/writer
- you → (the) listener/reader, pl. (the) audience
- they → that person, pl. those people
The writer believes that such an idea is quite stupid. In fact, the writer believes that the audience will find this language extremely obtuse. These methods will only cause more pain to the federal employees in question.
Don’t forget pronouns like who, mine, and ours. In fact, here’s a list of >100
Someone should write a script that completely replaces these with BS standins
I think we need a tool that automatically rewrites text to remove all pronouns, but I’m not even sure that is possible.
my new bio: (masculine neutral/masculine possessive)
my new bio: (masculine neutral/masculine possessive)
Isn’t it nominative/objective?
I don’t see “he/his” or “they/their,” I see “he/him” and “they/them.”
I put all of them in, ie he/him/his… just to remove ambiguity.
And pronouns remain in my sig. Ain’t going anywhere.
Probably! Been a long time since I’ve been to school.
but they banned mentioning gender, change it to (identifying with the societal archetype of the sex producing the small reproductive cell)
How does this hold up against a first amendment test?
deleted by creator
Well it’s not a private entity hiring them, it’s the actual govt. Usually the defense is that those are private companies and they can do what they want but that doesn’t apply here
deleted by creator
Because their employer is the US Government. The very entity the 1st Amendment protects us from.
deleted by creator
Most of that isn’t political speech. You absolutely still have the right to political speech as a government employee. Even the military was forced to let soldiers have political speech. The dividing line is where it looks like the speech is from the government instead of from you. Personal pronouns are hardly going to be from the government.
In your assertion the government could simply remove the rights of civil servants by issuing a policy. And that’s just not how rights work.
When “What Trump wants goes” is all the Supreme Meme Court cares about
It’ll never have to
- Name is Alex/Jordan/Leslie
- Not allowed to clarify gender
Wouldn’t the world be better off if no one knew each others gender? If you’re a cis man and find yourself attracted to another man? Congrats you’re gay now.
Hope you’re not named Elle.
Trump’s idol **inrich ***mler would be offended too!
Or He-Man
removed by mod
removed by mod
removed by mod
removed by mod
removed by mod
removed by mod
I work with military and the more conservative ones are bitch-made and demand to use the properly gendered honorific. Seeing CPT CUMBRAIN as the sign-off on an email doesn’t let you know how to address them. Commissioned officers get called either sir or ma’am, and some will turn into cry baby bitches if you don’t get it right. They love their pronouns.
I mean… Those kinds of officers could do with being bothered every now and then. It’s like with cats. If you let the officers go without shenanigans they get arrogant. I think the appropriate rate is something like 1 bothering per 6 months for every 20 specialists under them? That seems harsh but really good specialists can bother their entire chain of command in one go!
Trolling or stupid? Trolling…or stupid? I just can’t tell anymore.
Wow, did you rub all 3 brain cells together to come up with that? Your mommy must be so proud.
nul42 would stop using pronouns completely and just use genderless nouns or proper names instead.
Oh no what a shame
So, rather than make it.a choice, the Reich Wing is anti-choice. As typical.
But why would a pronoun be in a signature? Something like Her Majesty, Patricia Jones, Dept. of Health?
So people know how you would like to be addressed.
-
Parker Smith
-
She/Her
-
Department of Defense Black Budget Coordinator
-
867-5309 ext. 1
Questions?
-
