Hey everyone, OP here. I know this can be a somewhat controversial topic, so I'm keen to hear your perspectives on inclusive language and inclusion in general. Thanks for stumbling upon my post :)
Your behavior change is fine, and you're free to modify your own behavior if you'd like obviously. You never said it, but where many people go wrong is when they say "I'm modifying my behavior to avoid any potential for a perceived slight, and you should too." Such behavior policing is toxic.
I used to have a severe anxiety disorder that partly stemmed from being overly sensitive about what other people thought about me. I had to consciously dampen down that part of myself, and I feel much, much better about it.
I think instead of getting individuals to avoid offending others, we should instead foster a mentality of resiliency. People get offended far too easily nowadays. They should learn how to stop caring so much about what other people think.
Of course there's a line beyond which you're just a jerk, but to me, just saying "hey guys" doesn't cross it. But that's just me, and I'm in a region of the country where "hey guys" is acceptable.
This comment breaks the site guidelines badly. Ideological flamebait, name-calling, and (especially) personal attacks will get you banned here. We've had to warn you before. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting, which means editing out any swipes that make it into your comments?
On the other hand, I just looked at your recent comment history and am pleased to see a lot of mostly substantive comments there. Thank you for that. If you'd just be careful to take out the swipes (as in the last paragraph of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24813852), the problem would be solved. We'd appreciate that.
You are slightly improving as a person. I did not expect that. To respect your personal growth, I'll retire this account.
In the case example that you linked, I find it disappointing that you still do not read entire threads. The original article is a Wikipedia article with many authors. The original comment, which critiques either Wikipedia or Baumol & Bowen's original study, includes the summary:
> So - this is simply a bad, ignorant example. It's not just wrong, it's flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed, and is based on an almost total lack of insight into an industry that is worth $146 million a year - of which around $90 million is income from streaming.
My comment concludes with the line:
> This is a bad, ignorant example. Not just wrong, but flagrantly, wildly, outrageously misinformed.
I understand that you object to when we (those who know of the Prime Directive) hold a mirror up to HN. It is embarrassing to imagine how other people must see us, knowing how we see other people. However, that does not mean that we should stop looking at ourselves in the mirror.
