Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

Re:Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to... by marcellus23 on Friday April 11, 2025 @03:56PM (#43657865)

> How often are blonde-haired men referred to as "blondes" vs women

Never, because men's hair is "blond".

But seriously, the original quote does not call the person "a blonde," (which indeed might offend some) but instead uses "blonde" as an adjective to describe the dancer, which is perfectly acceptable. You can have a "blond man" or a "brown-haired man" just as easily as you can have a "blonde woman".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to... by HarHarVeryFunny on Friday April 11, 2025 @04:12PM (#43658025)

Well, as an example of language/syntax, any language example (including "blonde dancer") would be "acceptable", but in this context something like "fruit tree" might be more appropriate than "dumb Polack" (no offense - just a syntax example).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to... by marcellus23 on Monday April 14, 2025 @01:30PM (#43683828)

I honestly have no clue what kind of thought process could result in believing that "blonde dancer" is analogous to "dumb Polack." "Blonde dancer" is just not problematic, at all. It literally just means a woman who is a dancer and has blond hair. There are no slurs or insults or even negative connotations to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]