I look forward to the day that I can sit in my car with my friends, smoking something, watching a movie, and letting the self driving vehicle wander around LA while we look for interesting places to stop and explore.
I would never use my couch again.
Edit: If tesla begins making showers I may not even need an apartment.
I'm really looking forward a future where I have ownership and control over my cars operating system to the same degree that I own the engine in my camaro.
Also, I apologize for automatically defaulting to you being a he-dude and not a she-dude.
Which is exactly equal in impressiveness.
Dude is genderless! I'm just as much a dude as you are. Also, it doesn't really bother me :)
> I've never really liked Gnome. I'm a KDE girl myself.
[Edit, to clarify:]
first person: me
second person: you
third person: him/her
[Edit] and I now realize that this whole subthread could have been avoided had my original comment lead with "In this case yes, but...", live and learn :P
That aspect, that it was at one time, or still is, gender-specific, is what makes it inappropriate to call a person who doesn't identify with that gender. Like many other words which can apply to more than one kind of person, you have to think about how the listener will interpret it, not how you want them to interpret it.
Why do you think you can dictate what _is_ inappropriate for the rest of mankind?
And I don't get to do anything other than dictate my own behavior, and try to express an idea. Sorry if that came off as dictatorial.
What I meant to say was: Anyone who would rather treat someone how they personally want them to be treated, rather than how the other person wishes to be treated, has forgotten The Golden Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
In terms of human relations in general, and in a very extreme sense, it's the social contract that allows people to co-exist without killing each other. Would you like someone to murder you because you insulted them? If not, it's best to treat people in the same way, that is, not murder them because they insult you. Or, perhaps, just not insult each other, lest you murder each other. But the point is you're caring about how the other person responds to what you do, because that may affect you at some point.
On a purely empathetic level, treating someone how they wish to be treated makes them feel better. That has a lot of benefits, for you and for them. And it basically doesn't cost you anything, other than the extra second it takes to be mindful of how you're treating someone.
And in general people who only think of themselves are selfish dicks. I certainly can't dictate to anyone not to be a dick. But it's in their interest not to be a dick.
For example, by the "Golden Rule", I'd want to be called a "dude" if I were a girl, because I consider it a sign of equality.
You can feel free to disagree with that, but if it's how I'd want to be treated, then by the power of the Golden Rule, I should call girls "dudes".
I'd even go so far as to argue that the "Golden Rule" is doing precisely what you just said was bad -- it puts too much focus on you ("how would you want to be treated").
You are not every girl on the planet. Some girls don't like being called dude. With those particular girls, if you call them dude, you are being rude. If you want them to be rude right back to you then I guess keep doing what you're doing.
The Golden Rule totally accounts for edge cases. If someone is a masochist, you ask them if they are a masochist, and then you ask them if they want to be treated a certain way. If someone is from a different culture, you can learn about different cultures to [for example] learn which hand to shake hands with, or you can ask if you aren't sure.
If you want to be treated like an asshole, then be an asshole. But the rule is meant to guide you towards not being an asshole. It doesn't put too much focus on you, it puts just enough focus to hopefully prevent you from getting yourself killed by an angry woman who really doesn't like being called "dude", or getting the crap kicked out of you in a country where shaking hands with the wrong hand is a huge offense. Does this make more sense?
You're saying something that isn't what's in the Golden Rule.
But how do you do that? The rule does not cover that at all. But somehow you figure out how, and they give you water. In gratitude, as an interpretation of the rule, you give them flint to make fire. The nomads, it turns out, will use the flint to make a fire and cauterize a wound that would otherwise have gotten infected.
Sometimes you will be the nomads, and sometimes the traveler. The rule is really just a reminder to think about this situation at all times; it doesn't spell it out for you.
It was circular reasoning because you were saying if A is B (some girls like to be called dude), then B is A (you should call girls dude). You're using the premise to prove itself, like "I breathe air because I can breathe air". It provides no evidence of why this is so, nor account for any extra factors (if A is "some girls like being called dude", there must be a C: the rest of the girls that don't like being called dude. But C is never addressed)
I just don't think "treat people with kindness" is what the Golden Rule says. That might be the intent of the people who reference it, but the Golden Rule literally says, "Treat others how you wish to be treated", which makes the assumption that "how you wish to be treated" is universal. I agree, realistically one should treat people how they wish to be treated, but that's not what the Golden Rule says.
My point re: calling girls dudes is that you simply cannot know if a girl does or doesn't want to be called a dude unless they express a preference, which may or may not happen. Some girls like to be called dudes (A), and we should do to others what they like us to do to them (B), therefore we should call those girls dudes (C). (B) is not the Golden Rule as such, because how I'd like to be treated doesn't apply to someone else (see nomad flint worshipers above).
I just want to be clear that what you're saying is not what I have issue with -- yes, we should definitely treat others in the manner in which they'd prefer to be treated. My issue is entirely with the characterization of this as the "Golden Rule". I don't believe that's what the text of the Golden Rule reads as.
Why interpret it as "do what they would want, not what you would want" ? Because at its root it's asking you to have empathy and compassion. You simply can't achieve both those things without putting yourself in their shoes, and then trying to feel and understand the way they do. At that point, when you are them, you act in a way they would want, and it becomes a compassionate act.
When I was saying before that this benefits you in the end, that's true, though there is no actual reciprocity expected in this rule. It really is all about just doing good for another person.
Ask a theologian about it some time. They explain it better.
I interpret the Golden Rule as it is written -- a bad rule, from an intolerant time where everyone was expected to be the same. It never really applied, but now we have the cognitive tools to identify it as bogus.