Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkr-hn | Hacker News Reader

Language policing helps your argument a lot.

In this case it actually does. There's absolutely no need to change strawman to strawpeople, other than the necessary implied injustice that you feel for the fact that the word contains 'man', and therefore must somehow be corrected to contain both sexes. It's a silly changing of nomenclature for no other purpose than to generate a feeling of self congratulatory accomplishment over a wrong that doesn't actually exist, much like the severity of the injustice that you feel is placed upon women in society every day.

I use it because I think it sounds better, not out of whatever you tried to get at in all those screedy words. But you go ahead with your attempt at mind reading.

Using it because it sounds better can sometimes run contrary with the word and its meaning. In this case being confused with a pretty bitchin' New Zealand band. But let's be honest here, with the sprinkling of select phrases in other posts, we both know exactly what you meant and why you used it.

No.

Exactly.

Only, it's changing the age-old term strawmen to "strawpeople" that is the language policing here.

I can't police my own language. I chose the word. I have that right.

No, apparently you can't police your own language. But your act of "correcting" strawman to "strawperson" IS an act of "language policing" -- you're policing the language of the person who used "strawman".

And it was you yourself who said that language policing proves one wrong.

Sure, you do indeed have the right to prove yourself wrong.

What is this nonsense? Go away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com