Comment

Please just read the link. I’m not doubting you are aware of what it is. But there are really good explanations for the impetus for its usage and discourse about objections such as your own on the Wikipedia entry.

source

Sort:hotnew top

GarbageShoot@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I should clarify that my position is that I use AD/BC in everyday speech, but if I had to actually publish something public facing, I certainly would use the CE/BCE system for the obvious reasons. My objection to you was not that using the system is bad, but that it’s a trivial thing and therefore (by my attempted implication) an annoying and pointless thing to try to “correct” someone on.

So I did actually read the link, and I didn’t know all of the history, but I did have pretty good familiarity with modern Discourse about it as the article outlines. I would say the only compelling addition is this:

Roman Catholic priest and writer on interfaith issues Raimon Panikkar argued that the BCE/CE usage is the less inclusive option since they are still using the Christian calendar numbers and forcing it on other nations. In 1993, the English-language expert Kenneth G. Wilson speculated a slippery slope scenario in his style guide that, “if we do end by casting aside the AD/BC convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system [that is, the method of numbering years] itself, given its Christian basis.”

I’d really like for the numbering system to change, so I suppose that’s an argument in favor of being annoying.

source
- propter_hog@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I agree with your point, and that was my initial hangup as well. If we keep the numbering the same, changing the name is just a contingency prize. Pick an actual start of the common era, say some point in the agricultural revolution when societies began to form. The problem then, though, is actually getting people to switch.
  
  source