I think it is mostly that it is has a casual connotation and we don't have a great replacement word that gives that sense of casualness. I have no problem with it when used in casual situations. I do avoid it in more formal settings, for example I don't refer to my classes of a couple hundred students as "guys" and might say something more like "Alright everyone, let's get started..." or whatever.

So just to be clear, if a poster regularly says 'X' and you say the Person said 'x' that will not be allowed?

I am fine with that but just want the rules of the road?

(edit: as long as you are going to cut out all the "...ist") type accusations then pointing out certain people weaponize that will not be necessary and i for one support that)

Here in California, the "Don't Say 'Guy'" Law takes effect January 1st.

*whew*

I don't believe you! Cuepee would never do such a thing!

One of the problems with out-of-context assertions that "Poster regularly says X" is that if you don't supply linked quotes it is easy to get confused on what they actually said and what they meant when they said it. I think it is quite healthy to contrast current issues to prior positions, but if you are doing this then it is quite important to provide quotes to make sure you aren't inadvertently mischaracterizing someone and make it easy for a reader unfamiliar with the previous exchange to click the little arrow buttons beside the quote to see the original context if they are interested.

I use y'all quite often. (Most all of my relatives were born and raised in Virginia.)

"feminist protest" lol

It's actually not used much in the US either anymore. The "gals" part has just become sort of a dated term. My dad, for example (born 1916) might have used the term something like "she was a real nice gal". But I don't think it's used like that at all by any younger people. I've lost track of all the nicknames for all the different generations since boomers, but I would guess anyone under 50 would be unlikely to use that term for a female of any age.

Yeah I can't imagine hearing gal from anyone.

"Dame" is another extinct term. You'll sometimes see 'damas" for the ladies restroom in Latin America but I think that's antiquated there too.

I don't want to repost the entire paragraphs here, but the last two in your post, rather than addressing the topic of the quoted post (related to BLM) you went into a personalized negative critique of several other posters' posting style, which had no bearing on the point of discussion. It added no context or insight into the discussion.

So if you want to make a statement about "the left" or "the right" doing XYZ, that's fine. But there is no reason to add the names of our other members as examples of the bad behavior. For example, you can say "people on the left always lie when they don't have the facts to back them up". That's fair, if that's your opinion. But no need to add "like Browser does, who lies all the time when he can't produce facts"

It's not nice. Plus, then I will feel obligated to spend 30 minutes coming up with an incredibly witty and cutting reply. So I post "no, you do!" and then we are off to the races and the thread gets clogged up with off topic bickering between two users. But just as importantly, these types of posts are part of what creates a negative tone to the forum which potential new posters will likely find off-putting.

I get that and I agree but my question is 'if Bowser starts his post with an accusation of someone being 'racist', 'transphobic', etc, and that is there norm, will you be deleting all of those? I think that will clean up this forum immensely and then me or others saying 'those two people regularly weaponize such terms, simply will become unnecessary'.


I will be pleased with the change and happy to report any such instances of accusations.

I heartily endorse this message!

I would have to see the actual post in question, but in general my answer is yes. It is one thing to say that you believe a person's comment is racist. It's another to state that the person is a racist. To make that determination would require either personal experience with the person, or a rather extensive record of writings espousing racist ideas.

From what I have observed with some members having many months or years of debating back and forth, perhaps with harsh words, that there is an almost routine, obligatory off hand comment or dig included in most posts, whether it relates to the particular thread or not. But going forward, I'm asking that people declare an amnesty of sorts, and a truce on the personal insults. For example, it's little things like the difference between:

"I believe you missed the point I was making about the word guys..."

vs

"I believe you missed the point I was making about the word guys, just like you missed my points in the Musk thread and the Transgender thread, and every other thread you post in because your reading comprehension sucks."

One is a nice way of disagreeing; the other is not nice.

I agree, and this is consistent with Rule 1 of the forum to make a firm distinction between critiquing an argument and a poster. . However, I'm not sure it is consistent with your prior claim:

Correct, the lack of a distinction between 2nd person singular and plural pronouns creates unneeded confusion, and I would support bringing back the distinction.

This is also the reason why I don't want to lose the distinction between the 3rd person singular and plural pronouns, and why using one to mean the other creates unneeded confusion.

My brother used to call his wife "dude".

She later divorced him. I believe there is a correlation.

Whatever the value of this grammatical argument (given that singular "they" is used quite regularly completely separate from any trans issues I think it is a losing argument) the simple fact is many trans people refer to themselves with they/them pronouns. We should embrace it!

This sounds perfectly fine to me. I grew up in Kentucky, and that is exactly how the phrase "you all" is used there.

Yeah for me "you all" has to be referring to at least three people.

I was thinking that as well, but on consideration I think there is a difference. The word "stupid" is always an insult. It really is never used in a non-offensive context.
There are schools for the mentally disabled; there are no schools for the stupid.

The word "racist" isn't really an insult, it's just a description. Sometimes it carries a negative judgemental association, but not always. Someone who belongs to the KKK probably isn't going to be offended to be called a racist.

Where are you from? In the mid-south, where the phrase is most common, it is definitely often used for two people.

In fact it is so normal that I didn't even realize the reason it sounded wrong to you was because it was only about two people.

I see your point, and will re-examine my position. There is more nuance to this than my initial responses accounted for. But I'm not sure which way I will come down on this from a modding perspective. It's actually a broader issue, sort of like the "if it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck" saying. If a poster makes the statement "Group X are a lower category of humans than group Y" (or any obviously racist comment) is he then, by that action alone, considered a racist? Or can we say that it's a racist statement but he isn't a racist? But would a non-racist ever really make a statement like that in the first place?

So thanks for surfacing this. I need to give the subject of the ramifications of calling someone racist, transphobic, etc more thought.

While Im doing that I'd like to hear everyones thoughts about labeling other posters with labels like that. If someone called me a racist, I would take great personal offense at that. I wouldn't expect a moderator to allow what I consider a serious insult to stand. But if I were a racist, I might take pride in that. But openly racists comments will get you banned anyway. So peeling this onion is exposing additional layers.

To summarize, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the general topic of how to treat posters who label other posters with derogatory terms like racist. And what about when someone labels another's statements as racist? Can we make a distinction between the two, or is a person making racist statements by definition a racist? Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks

While nuance it key you will see, over time, certain posters fire out with accusations and slurs based on initial assumptions only without even attempting to ask or clarify what the person, in fact meant. They jump to judgement and then do not want to back down even as the poster is saying 'no, of the 10 choices you could have went with that is not the one I meant'.

If that gets cleaned up, and stopped, we will have far better exchanges follow. When you start with slurs and accusations it only leads to escalations and sides being drawn.

So i wish you much luck in this path as it will be the main thing to clean this place up.

I wish we had inclusive/exclusive 1st person plural in English. In some languages a sentence like "we're going to the store" would have a different pronoun depending on whether the person being addressed is included or not.