What do tweeps think of modifying some passages to make them less sexist? For example '[hu]mankind' instead of 'mankind' in the below. "Nature has placed [hu]mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure." Bentham
-
-
-
Could not have expressed it more eloquently.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My default reaction is to take people at face value in many cases. So if somebody says any of the above ambiguous/exclusionary/etc words, I just reply them as if they intended the prima facie meaning.
-
This does tend to often irritate of course.
But a lot of language is by default sexist, cisheteronormative, racist, etc. so it's no surprise canned expressions are pretty awful. -
In short, I assume the speaker is just fine in of themselves with good to neutral intentions but that their ability to express them clearly is affected by the biases in (their) language that they haven't addressed (yet).
-
I only assume all this if of course I know nothing else. Of course in many conversations, you may discover more details about somebody which can bias your assumptions towards a more refined conclusions about what is being done and the angle.
-
Speaking of context (partial, assumed, etc.) the Ancient Greeks had really really much much worse taste than we think. Really garish. https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/gods-in-color-ancient-world-polychromy …
-
I love those. They remind me of Mexican religious statues.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
