3 ms·

> 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' peopl

> 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.
- justin_vanw 11y ago
  I don't think I do need to do a study to determine this. I have been persuaded that you might. You are claiming that we should 'err on the side of caution'. Ignoring the false dilemma, first we must decide what that even means. Since you are proposing that we should encourage millions of people to change the way they refer to villians in fiction, I think it would certainly fall to you to provide evidence that such a sweeping change is worthwhile, and more importantly, worth costs, including opportunity cost, since we could have spent that time and effort on lots of other things. Also consider the blow-back which may or may not exist. By exposing such a seemingly trivial preference as 'bad guy' vs 'bad person' or the non human-assuming 'bad entity' (although entity may not be inclusive to hive-minds like the Borg, or more emergent Gaia like forces, so the side of caution may just be the British 'baddie', but -ie is a diminutive, and who knows who might come out of the word-work to take offense at that, short people for a start). By having such a trivial belief, you may well inadvertently have people then conclude that all your beliefs are that trivial, academic, and generally bizarre, and then have them discount your other ideas. So certainly we need to determine if it is more cautious to 'keep our powder dry' before we leap in and insist that there is some harm being done, especially since we've really not established the harm to begin with. Anyway, it's been fun arguing with you. I hope you enjoy the rest of grad school :)
  - renaudg 11y ago
    Thank you so much. I'm not religious but this discussion almost makes me wish I were, so I could start praying for this guy not to ever have to face the world outside academia :)
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      Language is not merely academic. It permeates every aspect of life and apparently 'trivial' things often aren't in the grander scale of things. Be cautious in what you dismiss.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Hacker News is a mere casual discussion forum, I'm not having nor intend to have a serious academic debate with you. I just pointed out a few holes in what you said. A lot of people have much more time and patience than I do and could argue the case for gender-neutral language better. There are studies you could read if you're curious. I will say one more thing, though: few things are ever as trivial as they appear. Death by a thousand cuts. (I hope you're enjoying your life, even if you did end that with an insult.)
glomph 11y ago
Your view isn't backed up by studies done on implicit bias.

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.

justin_vanw 11y ago
I don't think I do need to do a study to determine this. I have been persuaded that you might. You are claiming that we should 'err on the side of caution'. Ignoring the false dilemma, first we must decide what that even means. Since you are proposing that we should encourage millions of people to change the way they refer to villians in fiction, I think it would certainly fall to you to provide evidence that such a sweeping change is worthwhile, and more importantly, worth costs, including opportunity cost, since we could have spent that time and effort on lots of other things. Also consider the blow-back which may or may not exist. By exposing such a seemingly trivial preference as 'bad guy' vs 'bad person' or the non human-assuming 'bad entity' (although entity may not be inclusive to hive-minds like the Borg, or more emergent Gaia like forces, so the side of caution may just be the British 'baddie', but -ie is a diminutive, and who knows who might come out of the word-work to take offense at that, short people for a start). By having such a trivial belief, you may well inadvertently have people then conclude that all your beliefs are that trivial, academic, and generally bizarre, and then have them discount your other ideas. So certainly we need to determine if it is more cautious to 'keep our powder dry' before we leap in and insist that there is some harm being done, especially since we've really not established the harm to begin with. Anyway, it's been fun arguing with you. I hope you enjoy the rest of grad school :)
- renaudg 11y ago
  Thank you so much. I'm not religious but this discussion almost makes me wish I were, so I could start praying for this guy not to ever have to face the world outside academia :)
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Language is not merely academic. It permeates every aspect of life and apparently 'trivial' things often aren't in the grander scale of things. Be cautious in what you dismiss.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Hacker News is a mere casual discussion forum, I'm not having nor intend to have a serious academic debate with you. I just pointed out a few holes in what you said. A lot of people have much more time and patience than I do and could argue the case for gender-neutral language better. There are studies you could read if you're curious. I will say one more thing, though: few things are ever as trivial as they appear. Death by a thousand cuts. (I hope you're enjoying your life, even if you did end that with an insult.)

glomph 11y ago

Your view isn't backed up by studies done on implicit bias.