5 ms·

It's been my experience that communties generally work best when individuals are considerate towards one another. Some level of sensitivity towards avoding term

by Mtinie 11y ago

It's been my experience that communties generally work best when individuals are considerate towards one another. Some level of sensitivity towards avoding terms that cause discomfort to others goes a long way. > X is used widely, and never with any intention to hurt, marginalize, offend, bother, or in any way cause any trouble. It's been used righteously with pure intentions and loving hearts. Do you have an example of a term that falls into this category? I'm interested in words or phrases that have fallen out of use; especially ones that are "used righteously with pure intentions and loving hearts".

justin_vanw 11y ago
Well, how about the example from the page here. It says that 'boogyman' is potentially offensive because it refers to gender. So presumably if I am not caught up on a story, and I ask who the 'bad guy' is in the story, that is offensive because 'guy' implies maleness? That whole line of reasoning could not be more absurd. Nobody has ever said 'bad guy' or 'boogyman' with the intention of somehow excluding fictional women from engaging in immoral fictional acts, or diminishing anyone. If sensitive people go along, however, pretty soon anyone with any sense will avoid saying 'bad guy' because someone said it is bad to say that, and nobody wants other people to think we're not considerate.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > potentially offensive The problem is not that it is offensive. It's very unlikely anyone would find it to be so. The problem is that it normalises maleness. > Nobody has ever said 'bad guy' or 'boogyman' with the intention of somehow excluding fictional women from engaging in immoral fictional acts, or diminishing anyone. It doesn't matter what your intent is. Using 'he' and 'man' everywhere normalises men and excludes people of a different gender. > pretty soon anyone with any sense will avoid saying 'bad guy' Well, yes. What's wrong with that? If there's a superior alternative, what's wrong if people start using it exclusively?
  - justin_vanw 11y ago
    > If there's a superior alternative, It's not superior. Out of almost half a billion English speakers, probably a very tiny percentage 'highly educated' people would ever even think that this is a topic someone might have an opinion about. Everyone else, from small children on up, would just explain to you that a 'bad guy' can be a boy or a girl. It's not normalizing maleness, you are the one bringing an incorrect definition of -man or -guy, and that incorrect definition, which you insist on using despite being wrong both compared to the dictionary definition and long standing usage among native speakers, is what implies maleness. This reminds me of the people who try to claim (hopefully tongue in cheek?) that history somehow encodes maleness because it has the word 'his' in it. EDIT: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/bad-guy http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/ba... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bad+guy http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bad+guy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad%20guy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad%20guy You could go all day, no dictionary assigns any sex (in fact, most even make it clear that a 'bad guy' can be non-human).
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      > It's not superior. Why is a non-exclusionary alternative not superior? If it conveys the same meaning without being exclusionary, why is it not better? It's only not superior if you think being exclusionary isn't a quality, or utterly disregard its importance. > Out of almost half a billion English speakers, probably a very tiny percentage 'highly educated' people would ever even think that this is a topic someone might have an opinion about. Argumentum ad populum. Even so, you seem to be projecting: how do you know people actually agree with you? > Everyone else, from small children on up, would just explain to you that a 'bad guy' can be a boy or a girl. Would they? Have you gone out and asked them? 'tis true, 'guy' is sometimes rather generic, so they might say so. It's not the best example. But until you actually go out and ask, we don't really know. Err on the side of caution. (I should note that while 'guy' may be generic in some contexts, this is only because maleness is considered generic in our culture, so it would still be problematic in that case.) > This reminds me of the people who try to claim (hopefully tongue in cheek?) that history somehow encodes maleness because it has the word 'his' in it. It's either tongue-in-cheek or a misunderstanding of etymology. Using his-story can be a political statement about how history as we chronicle it has largely focussed on men's achievements to the exclusion of others', though.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > It says that 'boogyman' is potentially offensive because it refers to gender. Which is simply factually incorrect. "Boogeyman" doesn't refer to gender (or sex) at all. Like the "-man" in "woman", the "-man" that "Boogeyman" was partially derived from meant "person" -- a meaning that "man" had in English long before it acquired the alternate definition of "male human" (and even longer before that became the dominant use of the standalone word "man".)
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Etymologically, yes. However, the word and suffix "man" in modern English means a "male human".

by Mtinie 11y ago

justin_vanw 11y ago

Well, how about the example from the page here. It says that 'boogyman' is potentially offensive because it refers to gender. So presumably if I am not caught up on a story, and I ask who the 'bad guy' is in the story, that is offensive because 'guy' implies maleness? That whole line of reasoning could not be more absurd. Nobody has ever said 'bad guy' or 'boogyman' with the intention of somehow excluding fictional women from engaging in immoral fictional acts, or diminishing anyone. If sensitive people go along, however, pretty soon anyone with any sense will avoid saying 'bad guy' because someone said it is bad to say that, and nobody wants other people to think we're not considerate.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> potentially offensive The problem is not that it is offensive. It's very unlikely anyone would find it to be so. The problem is that it normalises maleness. > Nobody has ever said 'bad guy' or 'boogyman' with the intention of somehow excluding fictional women from engaging in immoral fictional acts, or diminishing anyone. It doesn't matter what your intent is. Using 'he' and 'man' everywhere normalises men and excludes people of a different gender. > pretty soon anyone with any sense will avoid saying 'bad guy' Well, yes. What's wrong with that? If there's a superior alternative, what's wrong if people start using it exclusively?
- justin_vanw 11y ago
  > If there's a superior alternative, It's not superior. Out of almost half a billion English speakers, probably a very tiny percentage 'highly educated' people would ever even think that this is a topic someone might have an opinion about. Everyone else, from small children on up, would just explain to you that a 'bad guy' can be a boy or a girl. It's not normalizing maleness, you are the one bringing an incorrect definition of -man or -guy, and that incorrect definition, which you insist on using despite being wrong both compared to the dictionary definition and long standing usage among native speakers, is what implies maleness. This reminds me of the people who try to claim (hopefully tongue in cheek?) that history somehow encodes maleness because it has the word 'his' in it. EDIT: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/bad-guy http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/ba... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bad+guy http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bad+guy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad%20guy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad%20guy You could go all day, no dictionary assigns any sex (in fact, most even make it clear that a 'bad guy' can be non-human).
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > It's not superior. Why is a non-exclusionary alternative not superior? If it conveys the same meaning without being exclusionary, why is it not better? It's only not superior if you think being exclusionary isn't a quality, or utterly disregard its importance. > Out of almost half a billion English speakers, probably a very tiny percentage 'highly educated' people would ever even think that this is a topic someone might have an opinion about. Argumentum ad populum. Even so, you seem to be projecting: how do you know people actually agree with you? > Everyone else, from small children on up, would just explain to you that a 'bad guy' can be a boy or a girl. Would they? Have you gone out and asked them? 'tis true, 'guy' is sometimes rather generic, so they might say so. It's not the best example. But until you actually go out and ask, we don't really know. Err on the side of caution. (I should note that while 'guy' may be generic in some contexts, this is only because maleness is considered generic in our culture, so it would still be problematic in that case.) > This reminds me of the people who try to claim (hopefully tongue in cheek?) that history somehow encodes maleness because it has the word 'his' in it. It's either tongue-in-cheek or a misunderstanding of etymology. Using his-story can be a political statement about how history as we chronicle it has largely focussed on men's achievements to the exclusion of others', though.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> It says that 'boogyman' is potentially offensive because it refers to gender. Which is simply factually incorrect. "Boogeyman" doesn't refer to gender (or sex) at all. Like the "-man" in "woman", the "-man" that "Boogeyman" was partially derived from meant "person" -- a meaning that "man" had in English long before it acquired the alternate definition of "male human" (and even longer before that became the dominant use of the standalone word "man".)
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Etymologically, yes. However, the word and suffix "man" in modern English means a "male human".