• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

We

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If one makes an assertion such as "We are not God" or "We are separate from God" without any inclusive qualifiers, such as "we of Manchester," "we overweight beer drinkers," or "we who had knee replacements," the one is including me (and you) in their assertion.
And there's the royal "we" context too.
If I were the queen, I'd need no qualifier.

This being the internet, I might very well be the queen (in disguise).
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
If one makes an assertion such as "We are not God" or "We are separate from God" without any inclusive qualifiers, such as "we of Manchester," "we overweight beer drinkers," or "we who had knee replacements," the one is including me (and you) in their assertion.

Yes, but in the OP, I specifically speak of personal views, not generalized human characteristics.
In your examples above though, you do refer to generalised characteristics. I can understand your point about people claiming to speak for any identified group but you’ve not yet identified an actual example of that.

I also think there needs to be some flexibility in casual discussion and even debate, especially if the meaning can be commonly understood. You could say “Americans voted for Trump” and quite a lot of Americans could accurately reply “No I didn’t!” (and many would very strongly) but the actual meaning of the statement is still valid.

Maybe we’re making too much of this. ;)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If one makes an assertion such as "We are not God" or "We are separate from God" without any inclusive qualifiers, such as "we of Manchester," "we overweight beer drinkers," or "we who had knee replacements," the one is including me (and you) in their assertion.

It does, but it depends on whether you take it personally. There was a bahai years ago that mentioned: why would we use qualifiers when what we say it is obviously our opinion." Some "people" think we are proselytizing because of it; but, it really depends. It's best to challenge the perceived statement itself. Yes, we are god; but, that doesn't mean you have to believe it.
 
Last edited:

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
The use of we is often blatant manipulation. Basically the writer (often a journalist grinding axes) is implying that right-thinking people will obviously share their views and you surely want to be considered right-thinking, don't you?

It particularly annoys me in academic writers who ought to be above that sort of thing. When some-one writes "Since we do not believe that the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon really existed …" I'm apt to resort to very offensive language!
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Yes, but in the OP, I specifically speak of personal views, not generalized human characteristics.
So I can't have the personal view that we (my immediate family) is the best family in town?

C'mon. Grab a grammar book or somethin'.

.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
And lots of people will disagree that they are affected by such characteristics and consider the statement to be a personal view.

Then why not use 'I' instead of 'we?' Wouldn't that be proper grammar?
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
It does, but it depends on whether you take it personally. There was a bahai years ago that mentioned: why would we use qualifiers when what we say it is obviously our opinion." Some "people" think we are proselytizing because of it; but, it really depends. It's best to challenge the perceived statement itself. Yes, we are god; but, that doesn't mean you have to believe it.

If begin a statement with, "We must all have the capacity..." does that include just Baha'i? Does that include you? Me? Beer drinkers that live in Manchester who have had a knee replacement? Who?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Then why not use 'I' instead of 'we?' Wouldn't that be proper grammar?

That would be better. Sometimes we is used as an indirect statement of one's own opinions. Maybe because that person doesn't want to take responsibility for a strong opinion that may contrast greatly with the majority or authority.

The only person I found owned up to his statement was when I asked a jew on RF if god told him to kill everyone (can't remember the exact phrase) would he do it as a jew.

He didn't say "we will, as jews, listen to god." but "I would..."

Threw me off guard, but some people hide behind pronouns.

If begin a statement with, "We must all have the capacity..." does that include just Baha'i? Does that include you? Me? Who?

Bahai use "we" a lot to refer to them as a group. It's a communal term. I don't know if they used "I believe..." before or rather "I know this is true."

But that phrase is just a generalization statement. I know "we are god" is more specific but the same context applies. We can take it personally or it can (and does) represent one's opinion without needing the qualifier.

I guess it's a context thing. If someone said: "we are all murderers" I think that would get a lot of reaction. Though it follows the same rules just depends on how the other takes it.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
This is a really good discussion. I hope I can have it sink in so I reflect a bit more before hitting 'post reply'. Bad habits die hard, and just today I've been calling people on it. A long time ago I was going to a psychologist regularly, and he called me on it a lot.
 
Top