News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by paulddraper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @02:33PM (#12425930)
Some highlights:

"terminology sensitivity"

"host may be insensitive, use presenter, entertainer instead"

"disabled may be insensitive, use turned off, person with a disability, people with disabilities instead"

"psychotic may be insensitive, use person with a psychotic condition, person with psychosis instead"

F--- that.

You guys are psychotic....er, people with psychosis.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by rvense on Sunday September 04, 2016 @02:39PM (#12425958)
How can "host" ever be sensitive? I'm struggling to find a meaning of it that'd be problematic in any context.
Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by coldtea on Sunday September 04, 2016 @02:42PM (#12425986)
What if the host is a homeless person, and calling them a host bring all the feelings about how they can't actually host anyone at their own place?

Better use "presenter" just to be safe.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by NhanH on Sunday September 04, 2016 @02:52PM (#12426052)
Presenter has "present" in it. Something that said person would be unlikely to receive as well, and would be sad about it. Not to mention it might be triggering for time-traveling people or time-lord wizard.
Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by coldtea on Sunday September 04, 2016 @03:22PM (#12426213)
That's a valid point I haven't considered.
Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by derefr on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @02:33AM (#12441293)
My own guess, for entirely different reasons: originally, a "host" referred to an army (see the Bible term "lord of hosts", etc.) Thus the adjective "hostile", and the grouping noun "a host of" mostly used for bad things, e.g. "a host of issues."
Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by paulddraper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @02:40PM (#12425972)
It's gender-specific (male).

The female counterpart is hostess.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by coldtea on Sunday September 04, 2016 @02:50PM (#12426034)
Tons of the words in the english language are gender specific -- ban them all because some small number of people decided not to "identify with established gender roles" anymore, and that its not enough for them to do so, all speakers of the language should also change their ways?

It's mostly pandering to individuals with an inflated sense of self importance (everybody change the language to cater for our particular use case and "offence"), and it's disgraceful and hypocritical because it leverages previous generations fights for actual discrimination and intolerance (e.g. against gays and lesbians) by taking to extremes from people that have it too easy today (or don't even belong to said minorities, but just "fight the good fight" in their name).

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by paulddraper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @02:59PM (#12426083)
Take, for example, "he" and "they".

For centuries, "they" has been plural and "he" has been used for gender-neutral singular third-person.

Now, some find that situation unacceptable and are trying to make everyone else change the way they speak and write.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by unclenoriega on Sunday September 04, 2016 @03:46PM (#12426344)
The OED has citations for singular they predating modern English.[1] If you look, I think you'll find that many of the English "rules" floated today date back only a century or two, and were ignored by great writers even then.

1. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200700 Pastebin link for non-subscribers: http://pastebin.com/kZFpdTnV

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by paulddraper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @04:50PM (#12426646)
I don't doubt it was used at some time or another. Ancient texts are filled with grammar errors, even judged by the proper grammar of the time.

"He" has been the _proper_ usage way back from its roots at the German "er", which has the same usage.

"Man" or "one" (German, "Mann" or "man") has been used in the indefinate case.

http://english.stackexchange.com/q/30455/69352

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by rspeer on Sunday September 04, 2016 @05:57PM (#12426919)
Your StackExchange link is not the most conclusive thing: you have people answering that you can still get away with saying "he", or possibly "he or she", and you also have people correctly pointing out that almost all English speakers use "they".

We are not talking about grammatical errors here. You're free to declare great speakers and writers through the centuries to be in error, but what are you even claiming at that point? You could declare that saying the word "bread" is a mistake and it would be just as meaningless.

As with most arguments against the singular "they", your argument from German etymology also precludes the singular "you". Do you say "thou" all the time?

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by paulddraper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @08:17PM (#12427382)
I believe the link proves my point: "he" is the formal/traditional use, but people are changing that for PC reasons.

> Do you say "thou" all the time?

"You" was not only the plural second-person but also the formal singular second-person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction#Englis...) -- similar to German "sie" and "Sie". So it was always correct.

Anyway, I'm sure the PC crowd will win. It's just an (in this case, innocuous) example how systemically they can change they way we speak and communicate.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by rspeer on Sunday September 04, 2016 @10:45PM (#12427803)
So this is a different change than the one you were originally talking about, when you made the incorrect claim that 'For centuries, "they" has been plural and "he" has been used for gender-neutral singular third-person.' It sounded like you were proscribing the singular "they". There's no change in whether the singular "they" is a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun, only the generic "he".

The singular "they" has existed throughout modern English. Getting rid of it is an insurmountably awkward and drastic change. People have tried, and they can't even remove it from their own speech.

The generic "he" is a relatively newer affectation that has risen and fallen in popularity in formal writing. I guess you can find a "PC crowd" to blame for its current decline, but this decline supposedly started around the 1960s, so you're not really observing anything new.

The only thing that's recent is (as EdiX pointed out) that there are people speaking out to say that they, as individuals, would prefer to be referred to with the singular "they".

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by paulddraper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @11:22PM (#12427890)
To make an analogy, "y'all" (or "ye aw") has likewise been in use for hundreds of years. No argument there.

But both "y'all" and singular "they" usage has always been informal, and inappropriate/ungrammatical for more proper contexts, which should instead have the more formal, traditional equivalents.

> ...it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual context, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing.

- Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by rspeer on Sunday September 04, 2016 @03:29PM (#12426258)
The singular "they" is an established part of English that has been used by competent writers for centuries, almost as long as the singular "you", whose grammar it shares.

You probably use it daily without noticing.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by EdiX on Sunday September 04, 2016 @05:26PM (#12426786)
Only as a bound variable pronoun, it's use as a singular personal pronoun is very very recent and not very common.
Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by rspeer on Sunday September 04, 2016 @06:04PM (#12426942)
Okay, that is an interesting distinction. It might even be true. Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them).

It is at least a reasonable claim that could be investigated further, as opposed to the claim that singular "they" is always an error, which any corpus will show is false.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by EdiX on Monday September 05, 2016 @01:14AM (#12428270)
> Although I don't think it's that new to also use "they" to refer to a specific person whose gender you don't know (perhaps because you haven't met them).

That's possible but I've never seen any historical example of this nor I have seen anyone do it (outside of a specific subculture) so I don't think it's true: after all it's usually easy to deduce the gender of someone you haven't met from their name and if you get it wrong nobody (outside of that same specific subculture) will get really angry because of that.

Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by oh_sigh on Sunday September 04, 2016 @03:09PM (#12426147)
I'm not sure that's the reason. Are these language police really suggesting new versions of words for every gender they invent?
Re:Inclusivity Is a Joke by paulddraper on Sunday September 04, 2016 @03:22PM (#12426215)
Yes.

Do you remember flight stewards before they became attendants?