[dahart]

That’s pretty cynical, and maybe not the smartest way to communicate. A similar argument can be made for “people”, and it already was made in this thread before I commented. A speaker can’t be expected to walk on egg shells because there are cynics in the audience who refuse to accept neutral and common usage of words. If someone chooses to interpret a word differently than it’s definition and normal usage, it reflects on them and not the speaker.

[waych]

It may be cynical, sure. But chosing cheap words to address groups of people is poor form for the speaker nevertheless.

If you are addressing others, use better words to describe them. Calling people "folks" all the time is lazy and insulting.

[dahart]

> Calling people “folks” all the time is lazy and insulting.

No it’s not. “Folks” means “people”, it has for more than a thousand years, and it’s used most often with the exact same intent. You’re making negative and incorrect assumptions.

[waych]

But it is lazy. Sorry if folks feel obligated to defend it.

[dahart]

If you say so, though I can’t say I’m super convinced by your opinion; it doesn’t seem like you’ve made a reasonable case or brought any evidence. To be fair, it is legitimately hard to argue with the dictionary and all of history, but I wish you good luck communicating with others! BTW, did you intend for that to be a self-own?