> But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? No one's say

> But surely the fact that they are married to this other person is a bit stronger evidence that they cares for them, than a slightly off wording? No one's saying they don't really care about their partner. It's possible to be put off and derisive of that language without judging whether they truly care. > And further, it's completely absurd to hear this objection from Hacker News, where the most common viewpoint seems to be "if it makes money then it must be ethical". If this is really dehumanizing, then isn't the bigger problem that most people are totally okay with dehumanizing language in a business context? Is the objection here that he doesn't stand to turn a profit? I mean, yeah. That part of Hacker News is pretty appalling. We _should_ be angry about dehumanizing language in a business context.