What definition:
- language that feels unwelcoming to people (all three articles)
- language that studies show excludes people (Quartz article)
Who:
- people affected by exclusive language (MIT article)
- people who research exclusive language (Quartz article)
> * That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language"
It's gendered language, which all the aforelinked sources list as exclusive
> * That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme.
We don't need to prove the same case over and over for every single word. Gendered terms have been shown to be exclusive + "bruh" is a gendered term = bruh is exclusive
..in certain contexts, where maximum inclusivity is the actual goal, if not the law.
Why is maximum inclusivity the goal here, again? Why must it be?
My earlier assessment appears to be correct. No person can be pointed to that actually feels excluded by this, and so all this sturm und drang is about hypothetical straw people.
This conversation is no longer interesting.
No, you just ignored the studies showing that this is excluding people.
BTW, tokenization is also discriminatory: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amanialkhat/2016/02/29/amani-al...
Starting points:
- Humor
- Context
for the context I come from a background that makes it possuble for me to get offended by a lot of things.
I still choose not to care anymore and it is actually way better.
* That "bruh" is sexually "excluding language"
* That an actual reasonable person feels "excluded" from using this update monitoring tool based on humor in its readme.
So far, you have done none of those things. Your links argue that sexually exclusionary language 1. exists and 2. is a problem. Nothing more.