3 ms·
It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "othe
by staunch 10y ago
It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "other" people than those of your group. Irregardless of how common it is with cops, it's still inaccurate.
It makes just as much logical and legal sense to refer to programmers as non-civilians as it does to refer to civil law enforcement as non-civilians.
- tzs 10y ago> It's not a matter of context. You're referring to the slang usage. Some programmers also call non-technical people "civilians" too. It's a way to refer to "other" people than those of your group. That's not the slang usage. That is the informal usage. And that is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the formal usage of the term civilian, which according to numerous dictionaries [1] means someone not a member of a military or police force. Is it your contention that these major dictionaries all got it wrong? [1] Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Random House
- staunch 10y agoName a single way that municipal police in the U.S. are not civilians. Is there any any legal or technical basis for referring to police as anything other than civilians? If not, then of course the word is being misused. Dictionaries simply update their definitions to reflect common usage, however wrong.