[libraryofbabel]

Oh wow, you blow my mind with your linguistic erudition; I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way! Well, all is forgiven, then.

Seriously, just... don't? This isn’t some woke political thing and I dislike excessive policing of language but damn it, there are limits. "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day. At "bro" I will take a stand, thank you very much.

[losvedir]

You're just showing your age. I can't stand it but my daughter says "Bro" to me and my wife. As a 40 year old Californian I've come to accept it as this generation's "dude" or "man" (as in "man, that sucks"), sadly.

[saagarjha]

I feel like replying to someone who is being called something they don't want with "you're actually just old!" may not be a winning strategy

[smithoc]

I'm genuinely fascinated and confused by what's going on in this thread, as apparently British and American English speakers misunderstand each other.

If I understand correctly, we've got: libraryofbabel says "maybe a little too uncritical" ... but that was supposed to be British snark that actually meant "it's a big problem that it's not at all critical"

Then, moab says "Bro" as a pejorative, because he took the original "uncritical" comment as literal rather than sarcastic...

And then libraryofbabel objects to "bro" not because it was used as a pejorative (which maybe she doesn't understand that it is in this context?), but because she interprets it as gendered (which maybe it is in British usage?)

I think libraryofbabel and moab are actually in agreement about the book, and but have both misunderstood the other's sarcasm. Maybe we really do need the /s usage.

[foobarian]

Heh I thought like you until we had kids. The 6th graders now are all "bro this," "bro that." And it's not even the usual English "bro," it's a slightly Aussified "broah" like it has a weird umlaut. I resigned to just roll with it. "Begging the question," though, that's a hill I will die on.

[mdp2021]

I am still in my bed of pain, and you summoned me from the after-public-life of attempted recovery.

> I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way

This is just sarcastic, right? "Male gendering" is just a use, no gender is involved in plain terming (outside the obvious exception of intentional gendering)... "Wo-man" specifies "/sensitive/ man", but there is no gender in "man", in "having a mind"... "Human", i.e. "heartly", is not gendered - yet some languages typically correlate derivations like French "homme" with male in default understanding... This should be clear, but just to be sure.

> bro

To the best of my recollection, in the IE roots "brother" is "who assists in the rites" - not necessarily gendered. (Some add that the idea is "supporter".) The suggestion from the term is that of the "brotherhood" - which is not gendered (the idea of fraternity is not gendered). "Sister" should instead mean "welcome" (to some studies): not gendered in this case; others interpret it as gendered ("one's girl" - this is what Etymonline proposes).

> "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day

That's odd. You wouldn't mind being called "a generic Italo- or possibly French ("Guido" or "Guy")"*; you wouldn't mind being called a "doodle", which has a connotation of "simpleton" - and you refuse "brother", which basically means to imply "getting close to you" (as an opening from the speaker)?

* Edit: Yes, also the explosion of the term and the non-national derivation from "Guy Fawkes" (from the celebration that involved displays of Guy Fawkes ragdolls) should be remembered. Still not precisely complimentary, I'd say.

[Tarq0n]

Language is intersubjective (its meaning is in the minds of the participants). Referring to the history or composition of a word is interesting but entirely insufficient to justify its use.

[mdp2021]

> intersubjective

I often quote what we do in the server-client relation: interpret loosely but express correctly.

It is not just a way of communication: language is one of the factors behind thought: hence, its care must be cared for and promoted.

Sure, also the context and the communication need have a weight. But without compromising into conformism (as in, "doing it wrong because people do").

> its meaning is in the minds of the participants

Awareness has its benefits (the greatest understatement I have ever written); licence has its costs.

> entirely insufficient to justify its use

Why. The competent will always use tools differently than the layman and the amateur. Again the server client (and always the need of good thought in the background): you will express as best as you can and try to be clear (communicatively efficient) within that framework.

[jatora]

what does erudition mean?

[mdp2021]

That was delightful.

Now duly supposing you are not ironic (all ages and paths come here):

You call people "brother"; "brother" means "supportive" (and is used for "openness", "closeness"); if you want to be close and supporting to people, if you want to be an asset (not a liability), you will have to cultivate yourself, to get the wisdom required. Erudition is not yet wisdom, but coupled with the good intention to learn the important things it surely helps.

[andrew_lettuce]

how about Güey?