You can now get a citation for making direct eye contact with a cop

[Janx]

I don't know, calling someone "comrade" sounds communist to me.

Is there a question regarding my gender? I've met Morrus in person (Gencon 2007), he can tell you my gender is certainly male.

I was teasing, by picking another person in the discussion. Apologies if that didn't read that way.

I assume Goldomark chose comrade for its communistic reference. I just liked it because of that and it was gender neutral, while having that formal tone.

 

[Janx]

If you see the adam's apple or the wrist bones, that's enough - its how you tell a guy in a dress, is a guy in a dress and not a girl in a dress (well aside from the beard). You don't have to look any closer than that...

Do you mean like Ann Coulter and her adam's apple?

 

[Kramodlog]

Formal speech and address is typically developed from (historically) armed societies, as far as I can make out. Japan has a lot of custom, tradition, and speech all formally developed so that if you use it, you avoid any chance of mistakenly insulting someone or their honour and (again, historically) getting killed for it. It's detailed down to how how you bow, how you accept a gift, etc. I wonder if in the U.S. the Wild West era contributes in a similar (though less extreme) fashion? Language developed to avoid offence.

All a WAG on my part.

So, following the logic, it would mean Québec and the UK were rather peaceful or safe societies?

 

[Kramodlog]

I was teasing, by picking another person in the discussion. Apologies if that didn't read that way.

I assume Goldomark chose comrade for its communistic reference. I just liked it because of that and it was gender neutral, while having that formal tone.

Yes, it was a bit tongue in cheek. Althought I'm not sure it should be discarded altogether because communism is teh ebil. It does put everyone on equal footing while remaining polite and friendly.

 

[gamerprinter]

Do you mean like Ann Coulter and her adam's apple?

And you know Ann Coulter is a woman for certain?

 

[Staffan]

Maybe this way there is no way you lack respect to a "social better".

There is no such thing as a "social better." All men, and women, are created equal.

 

[Morrus]

So, following the logic, it would mean Québec and the UK were rather peaceful or safe societies?

One could argue the opposite - arms encourage peace. That said, the UK is certainly less armed. I don't know anything about Quebec's weapons laws.

 

[Janx]

And you know Ann Coulter is a woman for certain?

Nope. I've heard jabs at her for not being an actual woman because of the adam's apple. And she is a dick.

In any event, in the 21st century, if somebody wants to be called or considered a woman (or man), you have to accept that.

As a result, her gender persona is ambiguous if I am to go by the adam's apple rule vs. how she dresses. The result being, much like the butch woman from my little side-story, a person is left to guessing, and at risk of getting it wrong.

Hence why I suspect language police will force us to not referencing gender in polite speech. Thus, Comrade as the new generic honorific.

 

[Kramodlog]

There is no such thing as a "social better." All men, and women, are created equal.

I agree, but not everyone believes that. Generally they are the ones who insist on being called "honorable", "sir", "doctor", "judge" or "officer", to name a few. Thus the quotation marks on social better.

 

[Janx]

There is no such thing as a "social better." All men, and women, are created equal.

That is an ideal or a fallacy.

Since the dawn of rich people, they have always had the better words and the higher titles for each other and a lesser man that don't mind their P's and Q's to them doesn't get the deal they hope to get.

Heck, judges and lawyers get titles and honorifics like "Your Honor" and esquire that us mere peasants don't.

All people should be treated equally. Especially under the law.

But the fact is, they ain't all equal, otherwise I could hire anybody to be a .NET programmer. And we'd all be born with $500,000 in a trust fund to ensure we'd be set for growing up and going to college.

And I sure as heck wouldn't meet such a variance of people who are stupider and clumsier than I am or smarter and more talented than myself. Don't sound like they were created equal at all.

Heck, some babies are ugly, some aren't. That's the very definition of created right there, leaving off what happens after.

To be clear, in my talk of folks who are or are not better than others, I am pretty sure that a person who lords their superiority over another most assuredly develops inferior traits and behaviors that effectively lower their quality considering.

It may happen that a person is better in every way than somebody else, until they become a dick about it.