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
-
-
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 -
-
-
I'm not so sure we can really claim to know whether the term was used with an inclusive meaning or not. Even if we were to have good enough knowledge of the averaged use of the term, we cannot know a past writer's intention, unless they have explicitly stated it.
-
You know who's clearly stated their intentions?! Kant!pic.twitter.com/SkSxIH5teG
-
Yeah, obviously in those cases I do not need to make any assumptions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
