4 ms·

> You can't say the word "guys" in the Slack channel, or a bot will come and correct you, and tell you to say "folks" instead. Being asked to use inclusive lan

> You can't say the word "guys" in the Slack channel, or a bot will come and correct you, and tell you to say "folks" instead. Being asked to use inclusive language is a weird thing to complain about, especially as the very first example you give. > And from then on, you'll notice the core team all use the word "folks" incessantly in their writing, it's like some weird cult. I use "folks" and other non-gendered language by my own choice. It's a habit I developed after self-reflection. Am I in a cult?

rriepe 7y ago
What is he allowed to complain about first?
serf 7y ago
>Being asked to use inclusive language is a weird thing to complain about that is, if you consider the word 'guys' as gender bound and inclusive. Female friends with myself in attendance are often referred to as 'Guys' by waitresses, waiters, and serving staff nearly anywhere I've gone. A former roommate who worked as a server at a restaurant used the word non-inclusively with the same meaning as 'Folks'. So, first get people to believe the word 'Guy' is inclusive. It's not. It's originally synonymous with 'Fellow'[0], which is also from non-inclusive origins meaning colleague, even if 'Fellow' was attached to males in the 50s and 60s common American English. >I use "folks" and other non-gendered language by my own choice. It's a habit I developed after self-reflection. Am I in a cult? Good. That's a great choice of habit. I commend you. Now, please, reconsider 'Guys', it's not as bad as the (current) common tongue might paint it. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/14/the-origin-of-the-word-guy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- mcherm 7y ago
  > >Being asked to use inclusive language is a weird thing to > that is, if you consider the word 'guys' as gender bound and inclusive. I think you might be overlooking another possibility. The same reasoning applies if you believe that SOME OF YOUR AUDIENCE considers the word "guys" to be gender-bound. If that is true, then a reasonable person might decide that for the sake of that audience it might be polite to use a different term even if that reasonable person doesn't ascribe any gender to the term.
ng12 7y ago
Any personal behavior becomes cultish when it's other people dictating you adopt them.
- rexpop 7y ago
  Which is specifically the circumstance abnegated by the post to which you're replying.
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
> Being forced to use inclusive newspeak is a weird thing to complain about. Somehow your post sounds threatening. I'm guessing it's intentional.
thijsvandien 7y ago
Perhaps it feels a little odd when one form of respect, addressing people properly, is strictly enforced when in a much broader sense, e.g. by not acknowledging (potential) contributors, it's so obviously lacking. Imagine holding a door with one hand while giving the finger with the other. What good is that?
- foldr 7y ago
  It's still good to address people properly, regardless of how people's behavior might fall short in other respects.
ar_lan 7y ago
I think it depends about messaging. There's one aspect to saying "Hey, we are trying to be ultra-inclusive, and there have been members in this group that feel offended or excluded via the term "guys". To make everyone feel welcome, we ask you refrain from "guys" and use the more inclusive "folks", instead.". vs "'Guys' is a non-inclusive and harmful term. Please consider using 'folks' instead." I don't know how the Elm slack channel has broadcasted this messaging, but the first offers the benefit of the doubt and a chance to understand the situation / learn. The second is just asking to put people on the defensive. Unfortunately, I've come across the second type of messaging far too often, and it often just induces eye-rolls more than anything.
- felipelemos 7y ago
  If you don't have a choice, in the end makes no difference, and the first option can come as passive aggressive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wyager 7y ago
Using positively connoted words like “inclusive” doesn’t change the fact that most people find these demands on our word choice strange and burdensome. > Am I in a cult? Don’t make this personal - the GP is absolutely right that obscure moral proscriptions on language is cult-like behavior, whether or not the people involved are literally in a cult.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

rriepe 7y ago

What is he allowed to complain about first?

serf 7y ago

>Being asked to use inclusive language is a weird thing to complain about that is, if you consider the word 'guys' as gender bound and inclusive. Female friends with myself in attendance are often referred to as 'Guys' by waitresses, waiters, and serving staff nearly anywhere I've gone. A former roommate who worked as a server at a restaurant used the word non-inclusively with the same meaning as 'Folks'. So, first get people to believe the word 'Guy' is inclusive. It's not. It's originally synonymous with 'Fellow'[0], which is also from non-inclusive origins meaning colleague, even if 'Fellow' was attached to males in the 50s and 60s common American English. >I use "folks" and other non-gendered language by my own choice. It's a habit I developed after self-reflection. Am I in a cult? Good. That's a great choice of habit. I commend you. Now, please, reconsider 'Guys', it's not as bad as the (current) common tongue might paint it. [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/14/the-origin-of-the-word-guy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

mcherm 7y ago
> >Being asked to use inclusive language is a weird thing to > that is, if you consider the word 'guys' as gender bound and inclusive. I think you might be overlooking another possibility. The same reasoning applies if you believe that SOME OF YOUR AUDIENCE considers the word "guys" to be gender-bound. If that is true, then a reasonable person might decide that for the sake of that audience it might be polite to use a different term even if that reasonable person doesn't ascribe any gender to the term.

ng12 7y ago

Any personal behavior becomes cultish when it's other people dictating you adopt them.

rexpop 7y ago
Which is specifically the circumstance abnegated by the post to which you're replying.

otabdeveloper4 7y ago

> Being forced to use inclusive newspeak is a weird thing to complain about. Somehow your post sounds threatening. I'm guessing it's intentional.

thijsvandien 7y ago

Perhaps it feels a little odd when one form of respect, addressing people properly, is strictly enforced when in a much broader sense, e.g. by not acknowledging (potential) contributors, it's so obviously lacking. Imagine holding a door with one hand while giving the finger with the other. What good is that?

foldr 7y ago
It's still good to address people properly, regardless of how people's behavior might fall short in other respects.

ar_lan 7y ago

I think it depends about messaging. There's one aspect to saying "Hey, we are trying to be ultra-inclusive, and there have been members in this group that feel offended or excluded via the term "guys". To make everyone feel welcome, we ask you refrain from "guys" and use the more inclusive "folks", instead.". vs "'Guys' is a non-inclusive and harmful term. Please consider using 'folks' instead." I don't know how the Elm slack channel has broadcasted this messaging, but the first offers the benefit of the doubt and a chance to understand the situation / learn. The second is just asking to put people on the defensive. Unfortunately, I've come across the second type of messaging far too often, and it often just induces eye-rolls more than anything.

felipelemos 7y ago
If you don't have a choice, in the end makes no difference, and the first option can come as passive aggressive.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wyager 7y ago

Using positively connoted words like “inclusive” doesn’t change the fact that most people find these demands on our word choice strange and burdensome. > Am I in a cult? Don’t make this personal - the GP is absolutely right that obscure moral proscriptions on language is cult-like behavior, whether or not the people involved are literally in a cult.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]