6 ms·
No, "Dude, you rule" is definitely gender-neutral by now.
by dimino 11y ago
No, "Dude, you rule" is definitely gender-neutral by now.
- eric_h 11y agoThat would be the second person to which I was referring. [Edit, to clarify:] first person: me second person: you third person: him/her
- ryanlol 11y agogjolunds post was definitely in the second person though.
- eric_h 11y agoIndeed it was, I was replying to arcticfox, who I thought overgeneralized (hence my reply). [Edit] and I now realize that this whole subthread could have been avoided had my original comment lead with "In this case yes, but...", live and learn :P
- arcticfox 11y agoTrue. The second/third person clarification is a good one for speakers that may not know better.
- peterwwillis 11y agoSo is "man". As in, "You totally should have gotten than promotion, man." Or "Man, I really love this pizza." Yes, it's used gender-neutral. But both historically and in common practice it's a noun, verb, interjection or vocative adjunct that most commonly refers to a male. That aspect, that it was at one time, or still is, gender-specific, is what makes it inappropriate to call a person who doesn't identify with that gender. Like many other words which can apply to more than one kind of person, you have to think about how the listener will interpret it, not how you want them to interpret it.
- BasDirks 11y ago"That aspect, that it was at one time, or still is, gender-specific, is what makes it inappropriate to call a person who doesn't identify with that gender." Why do you think you can dictate what _is_ inappropriate for the rest of mankind?
- peterwwillis 11y agoHumankind. :-) And I don't get to do anything other than dictate my own behavior, and try to express an idea. Sorry if that came off as dictatorial. What I meant to say was: Anyone who would rather treat someone how they personally want them to be treated, rather than how the other person wishes to be treated, has forgotten The Golden Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule In terms of human relations in general, and in a very extreme sense, it's the social contract that allows people to co-exist without killing each other. Would you like someone to murder you because you insulted them? If not, it's best to treat people in the same way, that is, not murder them because they insult you. Or, perhaps, just not insult each other, lest you murder each other. But the point is you're caring about how the other person responds to what you do, because that may affect you at some point. On a purely empathetic level, treating someone how they wish to be treated makes them feel better. That has a lot of benefits, for you and for them. And it basically doesn't cost you anything, other than the extra second it takes to be mindful of how you're treating someone. And in general people who only think of themselves are selfish dicks. I certainly can't dictate to anyone not to be a dick. But it's in their interest not to be a dick.
- BasDirks 10y agoI appreciate your response. Your values are something I can get behind.
- dimino 11y agoThe Golden Rule fails to account for masochists, or differing cultures, or basically anything that makes people different from one another. For example, by the "Golden Rule", I'd want to be called a "dude" if I were a girl, because I consider it a sign of equality. You can feel free to disagree with that, but if it's how I'd want to be treated, then by the power of the Golden Rule, I should call girls "dudes". I'd even go so far as to argue that the "Golden Rule" is doing precisely what you just said was bad -- it puts too much focus on you ("how would you want to be treated").