GEICO, the second-largest vehicle insurance underwriter in the US, has decided it will no longer cover Tesla Cybertrucks. The company is terminating current Cybertruck policies and says the truck “doesn’t meet our underwriting guidelines.”
GEICO, the second-largest vehicle insurance underwriter in the US, has decided it will no longer cover Tesla Cybertrucks. The company is terminating current Cybertruck policies and says the truck “doesn’t meet our underwriting guidelines.”
Comments here are a short form of writing, therefore people are allowed to phrase things and say things however they would like to. You won’t know someone’s intent before reading, so the way they write makes a difference.
And which intent would warrant using “he or she” rather than “they”?
They felt like it? Their brain worded the thought using “his or her”?
Yes, of course, nothing wrong there. I’m asking what’s wrong with using “they” instead, given that there seems to be some pushback
I think the pushback is coming from that’s how the person talk and or wanted to write the sentenc. Why was it so important to you to tell him a different way to write his sentence?
I wanted to offer a suggestion I felt is better for two independent reasons. I didn’t say “you should have said”, simply wrote why I consider the more inclusive they more convenient too.
I don’t think there was any active “want” behind that way of writing so much as habit (“how the person talks”). Somehow a lot of people seem bent on opposing that suggestion though, and while I don’t want to make assumptions, I’m starting to think it isn’t out of some deep disdain for convenience.
Thats how they speak.
That’s a habit, not an intent. You implied that there were some deeper intent behind using “he or she” over the shorter and more inclusive “they”. Of course people are allowed to write however they want to, and they’re free to ignore my suggestion. I’m wondering why people are so bent on pushing back against it - what is it about my remark that turned this whole thing into such an involved discussion?
You don’t think a display of someones habits counts as their form of expression?
Edit to add: Noone is up in arms about this, its a calm discussion from my point of view. Maybe you are confused there is even an alternate perspective though?
Not an intentional expression, no. If I say something out of habit without thinking, that’s out of affect, not intent. If I then double down on that habit when asked about it, it’s an intentional expression.
Maybe I came across too strongly in my first comment, but it was really just meant to be a comment on how “they” is more convenient on top of being more inclusive as a suggestion, not as an attack. I think it’s better to use it for two otherwise unrelated reasons, and put forth the one not hinging on ideology.
I am confused, yes. You’d either have to be stubborn about not changing habits or so opposed to inclusiveness that you’d rather write something longer to intentionally exclude. I didn’t want to assume either and just chalked it up to habit and wanted to suggest an alternative.
Well I wasnt the one who said it, I’m not sure they ever doubled down on it. Maybe they did take your advice already.
I just don’t want to limit how people express themselves, because I want to know their perspective. Its more important to me that someone express themselves honestly rather than they are politically correct.
Thats not to say you are wrong to make the point you are now. Ideally people would be able to talk without offending other people.
They didn’t. Hence my insistence: the original comment probably wasn’t intentional as such, nor do I ascribe any malice.
Plenty other people felt the need to ascribe intent, however. That’s what I don’t understand - why are people so eager to defend a phrasing and potential intent without ever consulting the original commenter?
I made a suggestion and argument why I find “they” better, without ideological insistence or being forceful about it. There’s no limiting going on.
The above note and specific context aside, I don’t categorically agree. While reasonable argument should be the first resort, there are honest sentiments rejecting reasonable argument that deserve no expression, no space and no opportunity to spread hateful rhetoric. I think it’s more important to foster a tolerant environment, suppressing intolerance if necessary to preserve that environment, than to grant universal freedom even to enemies of freedom.
Again, this probably doesn’t apply here - I doubt the original comment made a point of exclusion. We’re getting way off topic here when all I wanted was to offer an alternative argument for inclusive phrasing.
To return to the post, I would say it comes across wrong when you ignore the entire content of the persons post, and only comment about the he or she part. I understand that part is important to you, but you literally ignored the point they were making.
I would suggest to respond to the point, and then make the suggestion you did if that was important to you.