Not that I’ve noticed, anyway. I like “one” because it avoids so much ambiguity, but I often find myself avoiding it because, like “whom”, using it can lead to negative perceptions.
The context I’m thinking of is well, here:
This is from a somewhat contentious topic in the Pit. I wanted to make a point using one person’s quote, but I didn’t want to attack that person specifically, just use their quote as a handy reference to what several people were saying.
I do not think it has “dropped out of use” at all. It has never been used all that commonly, but it is useful sometimes, and still is used. I certainly hope it does not drop out of use altogether. We do not need the expressive possibilities of the language to be diminished.
I still see it in print occasionally, but I can’t remember the last time I heard anyone say it.
I don’t see any good reason why we can’t use the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘you’ in a general sense.
Compare:
I don’t see any good reason why one can’t use the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘you’ in a general sense.
It would be nice if we* could say what we thought. (*or “we all”, if you like)
It would be nice if everyone could say what they thought.
As for phrases like: “One does not simply walk into Mordor”, why not “You cannot simply walk into Mordor”? or “No one can just walk into Mordor.” And so on. “One does…” sounds stuffy and archaic, especially when there are plenty of perfectly good pronouns available.
Wow, I sure didn’t know that. For reals? I always thought (that is, I always assumed) that the French “on” was, at its roots, the same word as “un/une”, meaning “one”; and that the two words “on” and “un/une” had simply diverged from a common root, whereas the English “one” remained the same word with the two variant meanings.
But two can use it twice as much! 
[del]I’d[/del] One would like to suggest that we start an active and vociferous, perhaps even militant, campaign to popularize the use of “one” as a pronoun in English (particularly American English), but [del]I think[/del] one thinks that’s against Board rulz. 
One can’t be TWO sure.,…
Yup. I believe German has a parallel construction:“Mann…”.
(Which, to our ears, sounds like Abbie Hoffman talking: "The Man just wants you to be a number in the corporate machine! ;))
Actually, that’s “man” (one n, lowercase m).
“Mann” (two n’s, uppercase m) means “man.”
Man darf nicht “man” genau wie “Mann” buchstabieren.
There are thousands of things we could drop from English and rephrase. If we did, it could go from being one of the most potentially interesting languages to a very boring one. I wouldn’t be surprised if we could drop 75% of words because they have synonyms. We could probably drop “synonym” because that sounds a little “stuffy” too. Why must there be a relentless pressure on us all to appear less articulate, less educated, than we really are? That’s what it means when words sound “stuffy”, really - that the writing hasn’t been sufficiently dumbed-down enough for people who can’t even read as far as The Council of Elrond anyway.
You can probably find a way to rephrase any sentence to avoid using the word “one”, but you can’t always maintain the same level of meaning and elegance when you replace it.
Danke! So, like in the French situation, it has diverged a bit from its root – but not as much as in French.
Hijack: Has there been a feminist movement in Germany to discontinue the use of “man” (the impersonal pronoun)? If so, with what? Something new, or some existing alternative?
[Sheldon Cooper]
Incidentally, one can get beaten up in school simply by referring to oneself as “one”.
[/Sheldon Cooper]
I use it more frequently in writing than I do in speaking, but I do use it aloud as well. It’s situationally useful when one is speaking generally and might wish to avoid both “I”, as being too personally specific , and “you”, as being too ambiguously specific.
I’m a big advocate of using the pronoun “one”. It has its proper use and most people are ignorant of it and use “you” instead.
Well, on this website, you can just use “one” and people won’t give a crap. But it looks like you could have used “people” if you needed to:
I think that if people are going to come in close proximity to something frequently in life that they are concerned about, it would behoove them to learn something about it. For those who live in an area where lots of people have dogs, or who walk in a park that has play areas for dogs, it’s to their own benefit to be able to spot problems before they happen, and not cause problems inadvertently themselves.
This sort of thing is exactly what I had to do in one English class in high school, as both “you” and “one” were discouraged. Sometimes it did make things a little awkward, and I’d wind up just rewriting it, but often the sentence(s) actually winds up sounding better.
And, anyways, in the Pit, someone would have thought you were talking about them and got offended no matter how you said it.
One may find that some consider such usage to be highly annoying.
Yes! Just think how much popular, and therefore better, LOTR had been if the author had eschewed all this creaky constructions and obsolete vocabulary. Tolkien could have made millions, but then the movies would have already been made fifty years ago and the SFX would have been laughable.
I noted that Cecil is a regular user of “one” as a pronoun.
Most obligingly, his column posted today, What’s the meaning of “Ollie, Ollie oxen go free”?, June 22, 1990, provides us with an example, in which he uses “one” as a pronoun three times in a single sentence:
To be sure, in another sentence in there, he uses the generic “you” twice.