Perhaps "guys" when addressing a mixed group is because of a lack of suitable informal dual gender greeting (that I can think of). I often use "folks", but this is seen as quaint if not ever so slightly old fashioned.
What should people use instead?
I quite like the French "messieursdammes", but of course we don't speak French.
I like 'folks', but can see it could be old fashioned to some. What's wrong with the simple "People"?
Or on a forum like this, simply omitting any greeting and just getting to what you want to ask/say?
I'm reminded of talkback radio where every caller seems to feel obliged to greet the host and say "How are you, Bob?" Fergawdsake, the previous fifty callers have asked him he is, we have learned that he has been quite fine every time, so for pete's sake leave it out and just ask your damn question!
I know it's an example but if they said "What woudl we like to order?", the first thing I'd think is "Oh. I didn't know you were dining with us!!"
Oh, johenmo, you bring up one of my most hated expressions in nursing, where the nurse (or even occasionally the doctor), says, "and how are we today?"!!!
So stupid. The more assertive patients will feel bound to say that they have no idea how the doctor is but they themselves are feeling mightily irritated at being so patronised.
On the 4th of September I posted this statement on the "2010 Fderal Election" thread. Julia was rightly perplexed by it. After dinner I will address myself to the gobbledygook of it all.
Wonderful, Explod. I'm filled with anticipation.
Now this paragraph, which is in fact a longwinded sentence, is what you get when someone is cornered, outnumbered and trying to shoot down the enemy whilst at the same time running away.
And congratulations, explod, for such honesty. I think verbosity and obfuscation are traps we all fall into when finding it difficult to come up with a clear response.
I've often felt like this, and have eventually learned that it better furthers the discussion to simply say "sorry, but I don't understand what it is you are saying", rather than attempt to further confuse everyone by adding more words that are meaningless to anyone.
Let's remember the basic purpose of language, i.e. to communicate amongst ourselves. So usually, the simpler the better.
Then as soon as I've said this, I'm reminded of the great pleasure I have when reading e.g. Clive James who has such a gift of the expression of English that I don't much care what point he's actually making, such is the pleasure of reading or hearing the cadence of his remarks.
The life saver, if one can salvage anything, is the admission of bias.
Doesn't this depend on the context? If we are engaging in a political discussion, then yes absolutely the acknowledgement of our biases provides added credibility.
However bias was the critical issue raised back on the 4th Nov (sic) (was the 4th September). My reason for moving this discussion to this point is that it is a sociological issue more on topic for this type thread.
In the spirit of the thread, I'm going to admit that I don't know what you're talking about here. Could you clarify?
We are affected, as already averred to by others above, by which side of the tracks we come from, our education and general life experiences. A statement that is perhaps biased to one may not be to another.
It's a rare human being that is able to completely eliminate personal bias.
We have a natural tendency to seek out such texts that confirm our natural bias, thus reinforcing our original feelings. That's fine from the point of view of our personal comfort levels, but bad for promotion of objectivity.
As another already touched, an inflamitory or sexist remark may have many dozens of different effects on others.
Many dozens of different effects? Perhaps a few but not that many imo.
Sexism is not that subtle.
A re-reading of my offending 4th paragraph does reveal some murmerings of these issues but it is a complex hornets nest and no one individual can in my view (now in retrospect) get the hands completely around it.
Sorry, but this sentence is just as confusing and unclear to me as was your original post.
(Not wanting to be critical, but if the thread is to achieve anything, I can't let this go.)
So I invite assistance in perhaps developing some good reasoned argument so that we may define some ways of improving tolerance and understanding on ASF. And still have some fun too.
Great idea. I'd say that we can all best serve the interests of clear discussion, and ourselves, by expressing ourselves as simply and clearly as possible, without too often seeking refuge in a meaningless confusion of words.
Of course politics (as was the case) is always a very bad mix.
Could you maybe express this somewhat differently? Not sure what you mean when you say 'politics is always a very bad mix'. Mix of what?
Political opinions/views? Differences here are inevitable and anything but bad imo.