I mean, even if you personally feel that "guys" is totally fine for mixed gender groups, it clearly bothers some people. So why not say, "hey, everyone..." instead of "hey, guys..."?
Why not? Because I'm growing increasingly tired of having to keep up with all the various people who are offended by trivial bullshit so that I can adjust my own language to fit them.
There is no right to not be offended, and I think that fact is a core part of freedom of speech, both Constitutionally and socially.
Edit (the following line is out of place and unwarranted in this discussion but I will keep it in for the sake of posterity.): We live in a harsh world, and there is some nasty shit out there. I think people need to learn to grow a thick skin already.
Don't misunderstand me, I fully embrace peoples right to request people to change some of the common word usage, but I also support the right of people that don't want to do so.
“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” - Voltaire
I also support the right of people that don't to do so.
But you seem to be against those people accepting consequences of that action. What if I'm offended and decide to stop hanging out with those people, or decide to remind them each time that they are offending me? They should accept my decision and not tell me to "grow a thick skin" and pretend that their offensiveness is my fault.
"What if I'm offended and decide to stop hanging out with those people, or decide to remind them each time that they are offending me?"
Let me clarify a bit please, I fully support people trying to educate people on potentially sensitive verbiage, and their ability to remove themselves from a situation where they aren't comfortable. I think you are right and my "grow a thick skin" comment was unwarranted so I have put an edit in saying so. My primary issue is this:
Censorship, full stop. Don't like something? Ok, tell the world your reasons, and try to convince it to follow your lead. Don't, however, use "offensiveness" as a tool of censorship of things you don't like. That's my main point, so sorry if I muddled it a bit. Censorship from either point of view is my issue.
Of course, you also have to take into consideration that I am saying this from a decidedly American perspective, where freedom of speech is respected to a higher degree than almost anywhere else.
What part of "hey people, please don't use 'guys'" is censorship?
I still say 'guys' pretty regularly but every time I do I now check in with myself and think "was that a strongly gendered use? could I have said it better". Not because I feel forced to protect everyone around me, but because I want to do better at including people.
"Nice free speech you got there. Shame if there were any 'consequences'..."
True, one of the necessary conditions for free speech is that the government does not punish unpopular views, but another, even more important and vitally necessary condition underlying free speech is the tradition of respectful disagreement. This tradition is one of the prime values of the enlightenment, and it was hard won, emerging as it did from the repressive regimes and brutal religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries where people believed that they were under a divine imperative to eliminate all dissent.
The idea being propounded by the xkcd comic, that it is justifiable to mob, harass, shout down, and punish people you disagree with is deeply incompatible with enlightenment values, and represents a step backwards into barbarism.
It's interesting to see this viewpoint given as a reason to continue using language that we've been told is offensive and exclusionary towards a large group of people. (If you disagree with "offensive and exclusionary," substitute in "plausibly impolite" which doesn't change my main point and seems inarguable.)
The difference is that you see fit to declare holy war over very trivial micro-offences, while the religious factions after the enlightenment managed to interact peacefully despite profound disagreement with each other.
Hey, if you think that I've advocated censorship or claimed that you shouldn't have the right to say "hey guys" to mixed-gender groups, you've misread my comment.
The world isn't completely a harsh place, not even close, and doesn't have to be. Although, you could be posting on HN from a war torn, famine ravaged country, I dunno. Anyway, maybe you could try making the world a slightly less harsh place, if that's how you really see it. And if it is, I'm sorry you've been brought to that conclusion.
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
You're mistaking "the world" for "middle/upper class US". Horrible things happen every day to people who don't deserve them. Ignoring that is ignoring the struggles of those people, every day. This isn't a US-only forum, people of many nationalities and countries come here.
Softening your language makes it easier to pretend these people don't exist.
"That's why they call it murder, not muckduck." - Dwight Schrute, The Office
That was precisely my point. Many people fail to realize that you can deliberately choose what to be offended by. It's a choice. I could, if I wanted to, choose to be offended by being referred to as a "person" or part of a group of "people."
Being from Seattle, I don't have the habit of saying "y'all" but I recognize its utility. I like it much more than "you guys." I guess the Northeast equivalent would be "you's."
The worst thing ever is the second-person plural possessive that you hear on the West Coast: "you guys's." The correct word is just your but in the process of searching in vain for an unambiguous plural version we've created a monstrosity.
I don't think a lot of people will get offended if you address a group as guys. But if you address a group of girls as "girls", or even "gals", you are walking a fine line.
