4 ms·

Unfortunately the article doesn't suggest any alternatives. Cargo culting is a term known to most, so it's a pragmatic word choice when wishing to convey that p

• fenomas 2y ago
  I agree with you about TFA, but: > the literal definition of guys is: Persons of either sex I'm no culture warrior, but this isn't accurate at all. That's a definition, but it's not the usual one - ask someone "how many guys have you slept with?" and see how they interpret it. To me, "guys" is the rhetorical equivalent of a code smell. There are cases where is obviously innocuous, like saying "hey you guys" to a mixed group of peers. But when the CEO says "I want to congratulate the guys on team xyz" in reference to a team with one woman... at minimum we can say his intent is ambiguous.
  • nomilk 2y ago
    You're right about everything. But I'd argue if we're going to dedicate time to 'guys', we should no less have a meeting about every single other possible ambiguity that hardly matters, and try to somehow encourage inconvenient changes to people's natural vocabularies. Similarly to the article above, during the meeting, no alternative was suggested. I like the word 'guys' for its casualness. If you're at risk of being perceived as somewhat authoritative, it can help induce a more casual tone. I thought about 'peeps' but that's too casual (and frankly weird, in a business setting). 'Everyone' is far too sterile. 'Ladies and gentlemen' is weird. 'All' (e.g. 'hi all') is also impersonal. Workplaces could over-analyse and pick about minutiae all day long, and how productive is that? I reasoned that if we are going to pick about minutiae, then it should at least be the worst of the worst offences, and should be accompanied with some alternatives or solutions. Not just "Don't do <x> because I said so" type of thing.
    • jwkpiano1 2y ago
      In my experience y’all works as a perfect alternative to “you guys”, even as a non-Southerner myself. After my initial discomfort using it it became quite natural.
      • YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
        I am not a “y’all”, and I’m not a “folk”. If you use either of these terms to refer to a group that includes me or potentially could include me I will interpret it as a deliberate insult.
    • fenomas 2y ago
      Sure, I follow. FWIW, every time I've seen this discussed in a corporate context there was always a suggested alternative, and it was always "folks".
      • collingreen 2y ago
        Folks, y'all, team, friends, listeners/readers, people, <title>s.
        • fidotron 2y ago
          Curiously the words you list for that usage are now tell tale signs of language policing. It's almost as revealing as "Yikes, there's a lot of issues to unpack there. Top of mind is the absence of guardrails around inappropriate language and metaphor." Quite how we've reached the point where political persuasions are linguistically distinct I have no idea.
          • jwkpiano1 2y ago
            Come on. You can’t honestly tell me that “folks” or “y’all” are signs of language policing. I think many Southerners would vehemently disagree with you.
• someothherguyy 2y ago
  And look at the trauma that abuse caused. You are still reliving the moment today, in flashbacks. I hope you recover one day.
  • nomilk 2y ago
    There's no need to be smart about it. It just wasted 80 x 10 mins = 13 hours of company time that could have been spent improving outcomes for customers and shareholders. It also brought politics into the office and annoyed a lot of people so while it might make life ever so slightly less ambiguous, it probably had a net loss in cost-benefit terms. And although it's just one example, it seems reflective of the practice more broadly in being cost-benefit negative.
    • someothherguyy 2y ago
      Oh, I was being serious. I think people who do this are abusive.
      • nomilk 2y ago
        More-so: time-wasting, petty, controlling, slightly more unhelpful than helpful.