zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. stuaxo+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-02-19 00:24:28
"folks" is possible the most egerious of these as it's an American version of English and Roald Dahl, while not English was spoke in the English version of English, not the US version.

"Everyone" or "people" would make more sense

replies(1): >>noneth+Qd
◧
2. noneth+Qd[view] [source] 2023-02-19 02:22:25
>>stuaxo+(OP)
Or, you know, ladies and gentleman
replies(2): >>egonsc+Zk >>gedy+Qw
◧◩
3. egonsc+Zk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 03:26:11
>>noneth+Qd
I would guess the change was made because they felt ladies and gentlemen does not account for non-binary genders
replies(2): >>Quarre+Bn >>type0+Ty9
◧◩◪
4. Quarre+Bn[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 03:50:16
>>egonsc+Zk
does that matter when there don't appear to be any non-binary people in any of Roald Dahls works?
replies(1): >>tohnji+xp
◧◩◪◨
5. tohnji+xp[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 04:07:57
>>Quarre+Bn
Oh my goodness how dare he!
replies(1): >>salawa+SR
◧◩
6. gedy+Qw[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 05:14:54
>>noneth+Qd
Goodness how could he assume that before asking their personal pronouns? /s
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. salawa+SR[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-19 09:52:26
>>tohnji+xp
Did you just assume their gender?

(I'll see myself out.)

◧◩◪
8. type0+Ty9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-02-21 23:46:42
>>egonsc+Zk
they forgot the queers so it should have been "folx" in double-non-binary
[go to top]