3 ms·
I think because it's unrelated to the original comment. "Guys" was not in question, "attaboy" was. Using "guys" as an argument would be a strawman regardless if
by chewbacha 8y ago
I think because it's unrelated to the original comment. "Guys" was not in question, "attaboy" was. Using "guys" as an argument would be a strawman regardless if the rationale is correct.
WRT "guys"; I know of at least two companies (and I work at one) which try to encourage the use of other pronouns in place to "guys" in order to be more inclusive.
- JMTQp8lwXL 8y agoThe point was, attaboy could be used in the same way that "guys" is. I don't see how that's a straw man fallacy. Also, companies promoting switching pro-nouns is an ineffective way to get people to be more inclusive. It's a band-aid. You be inclusive by actually being inclusive.
- chewbacha 8y agoSeems to me that respecting someone’s feelings of “exclusion” by using pronouns that make them feel included is “being inclusive” Not every company need change, but if a pretty minor change can have a big impact on someone’s happiness and feeling of belonging, I’m willing to change.