Yeah, well, The Portrait of a Lady could have used some Skibidi. What a snooze.
This started happening to my mother in her mid-50s, though instead of rambling self-aggrandizement it’s rambling about her trauma and politics. And often she would start a ramble about politics that turned into a trauma ramble. Like she started talking about Kamala Harris wanting to legalize sex work and then it would be all about her again. She also called me up to complain that people wanted to oust Lauren Boebert and she kept saying, “You might see me on the news! I’m not letting them disenfranchise me!” But she never actually explained the issue or who she was talking about, so I had to piece it together afterward. My Aunt called it “word salad.” She was nearly incomprehensible. I’m sorry to say it reminded me a lot of my schizophrenic uncle before he passed. I don’t know if it was a slide toward dementia or worsening psychosis or what.
That was the point at which I realized there was nothing to salvage in that relationship. My Mom, for all her flaws, used to be an astute, scientifically literate, highly competent person - she was an engineer in my early childhood. All of that is gone now.
I look at the Trump of yesteryear and the Trump of today and that’s what I see. My Mom. I think the Trump of yesteryear was also narcissistic and petty, but he had a facility of language that at least suggested competence.
It could (no idea if it does). Remember everybody ages a little bit differently. My landlord died several months ago at the age of 94. In most respects he was still sharp as a tack, to the point where I was genuinely shocked when I found out how old he was (he lived in a different state and we only communicated through phone or email). By contrast I have known people who have gone fully senile longggg before then.
You just never know.
True dat, but whether it’s age alone, or age plus dementia, the man has clearly deteriorated badly.
“Speechifier” is a real word, dating back at least 250 years.
It certainly is, yes, thank you. Major blooper by the pup (who hurriedly adds one more word to his vocabulary). Good thing, then, that I wasn’t going to criticize anyone for using it! 
But it does have the comical sense of a word that shouldn’t be real. Language is supposed to be all about one’s sense of it, and not what’s written in them there fancy books, amiright?
My jaw dropped reading this. How on earth can you say that when you use (an insult) referring to people who do X, you don’t mean people who do X are (the insult)?
This is the entire point of that first blog post: empathy. You aren’t considering that your own language is a weapon and can hurt those you are talking to/referring to. It’s just as maddening as when my fat ass is with someone who makes a really shitty, nasty comment about fat people*, then realizes a fat person is standing right next to them and says, “oh, I don’t mean you!”
Yes, you do.
* take your pick between being gross, lazy, nasty, a drain on society, etc etc etc etc.
ETA: fixed verb tense
Is it completely, though? I used to say that for my own dialect, but I realized that it’s only really gender neutral for a phrase like “you guys”. If I needed to direct someone over to a woman across a crowded room, I would never say, “that guy in the striped dress carrying a straw purse”, y’know?
Not meaning to pile on, and I recognize that @carrps is a woman. She and I also grew up in the same metro area in about the same years.
Her comment sat slightly funny with me too when it was fresh a week ago. I was reading on my phone so responding timely was impractical. Thanks @zweisamkeit for refreshing it.
As a young person long ago, yes, in my dialect it was gender-neutral. Up until 10 years ago I’d use it that way too.
But despite the fact that here in 2024 it still occasionally slips out of my mouth it feels like one of the last bastions of the fading and now-noxious notion that “the male subsumes the female”. So it’s obviously discordant and when directed at an audience including some / many women, somebody in that audience will be rightly rankled by it. So don’t use it. Or at least I tell myself “don’t use it.” And I usually succeed.
“Folks” is a useful gender-neutral substitute for “guys”.
But the post quotes “guys” in the plural, not the singular as your example. That’s a big difference (which you seem to recognize with your example.)
That has been my substitute. Works great.
I’ve heard “gang” in the past as well. “Hey gang…”
I wasn’t serious when I lobbed that correction at myself upthread. Maybe the correction was valid though. I’ll hypothesize and opine that “You guys…” is still acceptable as the phrase doesn’t have a ready substitute.
ETA: OED entry on Speachifier. First observed in 1777. Usage is fewer than 1 in 100 million words in modern English. Let’s change that.
Only as in the example of “you guys” is it gender neutral. I can’t imagine calling an individual woman a guy. But @LSLGuy is now making me re-think my feminist credentials. I might have to drop the phrase. Sigh And it took me so long to stop blurting out the r-word. Never for anyone actually mentally challenged however. Language patterns can be very stubborn.
I’m just baffled.
In what way is “you folks” or “those folks” or “us folks” not a perfect and utterly gender-inclusive substitute for the definitely gendered “you guys” or “those guys” or “us guys” ?
I grant that you were being hypercorrective in jest in your post waaay upthread. But this comment here 2 posts ago sounds odd in the context of the other 5 or so posts above it.
True, though I’d say it’s not even singular vs plural, but “guys” being directed at the listener(s) specifically. Because “what can I get you guys?” to a table of women or mixed-gender individuals is common, but to go back to my example, if the large room was filled with small clusters of people, I wouldn’t refer to a cluster of women as “those guys over there” and I don’t know anyone who would.
It leads me to feel that it’s like LSL Guy said, that male subsumes female or is “the default”. And I hate that tendency so I’ve been working on changing my vocab to “you all” or “folks” or “team” or what have you.
“You folks need to buck up and start connecting with the ball”, the coach scolded.
[Lame pun made by team member.]
Coach: “You guys…”
I frequently use “folks” in my posts in preference or as an alternate to “people”. But in casual speech, “guys” (plural) has been used so often in the gender-neutral sense that it has clearly acquired a well-accepted gender-neutral meaning. The answer to your question is that the way that “you folks” is not perfect is that it sounds slightly odd in certain dialects and contexts where “you guys” would be more natural.
From Merriam Webster (emphasis mine):
guy (noun)
a
: MAN, FELLOW
b
: PERSON —used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex
“saw her and the rest of the guys”
Rather than considering it sexist or “male subsuming female”, how about considering that women are exercising the right to the same slang terminology as men, and have been doing it for so long that it’s now in the dictionary.
Those who think it’s sexist are free to not use the word, but since women – young women in particular – use it all the time to refer to themselves, in informal contexts I will too.
But as @pulykamell and the dictionary both say, there’s a big difference between the singular and the plural.
While I tend to lean against the "male subsumes the female” notion, especially when superior labels like “Firefighters” are available, I wonder about how non-English languages handle evolving feminist considerations. If this was something unique to the Anglophone world (it isn’t), it would give me pause. But I don’t know how much traction concerns about non-sexist labels have in other languages.
Concrete empirical evidence of harm would override such international observations, but I’m not familiar with the linguistic/psychological research in this area.
ETA: Circling back to the morons controversy. Whatever the advantages of upholding standards and characterizing adults who are indifferent to proper grammar as morons, they do not apply to elementary school children. So I extent another tip of the hat to LHoD. His flavor of descriptivism seems on target in that context.
I do miss it. My favorite expletive at one time, well suited to many an idiotic situation/encounter/person. Ah, well - society marches on and I endeavor to conform to the new polite norms.