it(')s

[Slurpee]

Now ask me about "whom." =]

[miracle fruit]

i'm saying just the apostrophe on "it's" and the lack of it on "its", i don't care about other possessives because some can be stupid yeah sure

if you think "it's" is stupid then you must think all other contractions are stupid too because there's a very clear reason to leave the apostrophe off on the possessive

it's (it is) is fine and i'm guessing the reason for leaving the apostrophe off the possessive would be, as slurpee said, to avoid confusion between the two

Possessive pronouns (and their cousins, vanilla pronouns) substitute for other parts of the sentence so you don't keep repeating yourself and make horrible stilted sentences.

That's to say, one probably doesn't want to say:
"Jim was dicking around with Jim's sock before Jim put Jim's sock in Jim's sock's drawer."
when one can instead say:
"Jim was dicking around with his sock before he put it in its drawer."
(One could say "a sock" or "the drawer", but that fails to convey whose sock or what drawer. Jim's sock and what he was doing with it, and with which drawer, probably don't sound very important, but you can probably extrapolate the potential importance of clarity that is served.)

"Jim was dicking around with he's sock before he put he's sock in it's drawer."

and really this sounds horrible and stilted and possibly foreign but that's only because we're all used to how strange the english language is already

If the possessive distinction didn't exist in nouns and pronouns, it would have to exist in adjectives, probably as a declension, and irregular adjectives would become a fucking nightmare.

well i may be alone on this but i'd prefer the entire english language changed to fit my need to say she's, he's and it's >: (

Obviously, the purpose of language is communication, and pedantry isn't always called for as long as the idea being conveyed is completely clear, but failing to observe the distinction can also make sentences more difficult to parse in a single read, which can be jarring for the reader, and counterproductive to conveying an idea.

Kind of like these:

"Do you know what a buck does to does?"
"I like to read. In fact, I read a book yesterday."
"Don't desert me here in the desert!"
"With every number I saw, my mind got number and number."

[miracle fruit]

Now ask me about "whom." =]

isn't that because you can't end a sentence with 'who'

[Slurpee]

"Jim was dicking around with he's sock before he put he's sock in it's drawer."
 
 and really this sounds horrible and stilted and possibly foreign but that's only because we're all used to how strange the english language is already
 
 well i may be alone on this but i'd prefer the entire english language changed to fit my need to say she's, he's and it's >: (

I don't know for sure but it's possible the current set of possessive pronouns started out as "he's", "it's", etc. and evolved and contracted to their current state over time. Don't know don't know don't know. Linguistic history (and its friend, the history of linguistics) is not my bag.
Languages change a lot. Any English older than like 8-10 centuries back is basically unreadable alien gibberish. That is all I know.

I bring this up because it is partially relevant to my next point.
 

Kind of like these:

"Do you know what a buck does to does?"
"I like to read. In fact, I read a book yesterday."
"Don't desert me here in the desert!"
"With every number I saw, my mind got number and number."

Yes hahahaha exactly.

The thing is English is a bastard language, with germanic and latinate influences on the structure, lexicon, pronunciation and... alllll that good stuff. That probably doesn't mean much to you if you don't know a lot about linguistics (and I wouldn't blame you) but the long and short of it is sometimes parts of it won't mesh well with other parts. You guys were not wrong to acknowledge that English is dumb and doesn't make any sense.

Possessive pronouns, though, make sense in and of themselves and are seldom confused with the rest of the language, so it's kind of a silly thing to complain about.

isn't that because you can't end a sentence with 'who'

Kind of, sort of, not really.
I was kidding in bringing it up, but it's to do with the linguistic properties of a sentence. "Who" refers to a sentence's subject, and "whom" refers to an object.

It's a wildly unimportant distinction.

[OvenmittClock]

this is the only reason i came here for