2. it can be interesting and seductive to think about the things we know at a deeply entrenched, axiomatic premise level from a new and different angle

3. op, can you think of anything that might cause people to get super interested in how category structures such as those of linguistics — which are developed by humans as tools for thinking clearly and updated regularly as their thinking develops; they are not evolved by nature or some such god figure for purposes of its own, and they are not immutable realities like the laws of physics prior to the existence of conscious beings trying imperfectly to formulate them — actually work, and in what sense and to what degree they may in fact be mutable and contingent and should be subject to updating as we come to understand the world differently

"it can be interesting and seductive to think about the things we know (...) from a new and different angle"

i mean, sure? but that's not what's happening in the discourse this post is about. during the boom of 'chat is a pronoun' posts a couple years back, the headlining statement was never 'i would like to volunteer a new framework for conceptualizing grammar', it was 'chat is a pronoun, and it is a new type of pronoun, and our existing comprehension of english grammar is fully compatible with this new revelation'

"[the category structures] of linguistics (...) are developed by humans as tools (...) they are not immutable realities (...) they [are] mutable and contingent..."

i am aware that language is definitionally not prediscursive. money, labour, culture, cuisine, art, & philosophy are all also things that humans invented: this does not prevent them from having observable patterns & structures, nor does it negate the existence of misinformation about these subjects

"...and should be subject to updating as we see the world differently"

variations on this sentiment are quite common in the 'chat is a pronoun' discourse--ie, 'our existing comprehension of grammar & language is in need of updating'. the thing is, nobody ever seems to get specific about it. i completely agree that science should be updated in accordance with new information & values, but like--what is the new information here? what are we now seeing differently about the world that has outmoded the definition of 'pronoun'? what is the new definition of 'pronoun', & why is it more useful to conceptualize pronouns via this new model? frankly, this is 'tail wags dog'. 'i am wrong about this, therefore the science must be outdated' appeals to what is ultimately a solipsistic mode of thinking. the pyramids were build by aliens, therefore our comprehension of history & architecture is wrong. 2+2=5, so maybe the meaning of 'plus' is in need of an update

"maybe one hazard of a (...) robust immune reaction against misinformation is going a bit too hard, falling into essentialism"

'pronoun' is a descriptive category, & the usage of 'chat' by twitch streamers & people imitating twitch streamers does not fall within that description. i dont see what's essentialist about that.

"over-reifying the actual science/facts in question"

??????????

"there's nothing inaccurate in this post"

ID credit: 197989426 on 小红书