It’s also the most unbiased word for referring to a group in a gender neutral way I’ve seen lol most others have implications of status (gentlepersons, folks), are still technically gendered (guys, not to mention this implies relatively young people too), or overbroad (everybody is well, everybody. Chat implies you’re addressing your community or a small group since they’re the ones who would be talking to you).
the way i see it, “folks” can refer to a more traditional group of people, most likely rural, and you wouldn’t call nobles or people of other high status “folks”.
but also i doubt people think it is problematic; it’s just a quirk of the English language that “chat” emerged basically out of nowhere with the closest analogue being “audience”.
the way i see it, “folks” can refer to a more traditional group of people, most likely rural, and you wouldn’t call nobles or people of other high status “folks”.
But you’d call nobles or high status people “chat”?
It’s also the most unbiased word for referring to a group in a gender neutral way I’ve seen lol most others have implications of status (gentlepersons, folks), are still technically gendered (guys, not to mention this implies relatively young people too), or overbroad (everybody is well, everybody. Chat implies you’re addressing your community or a small group since they’re the ones who would be talking to you).
Wait “folks” has a status implication? IS NO WORD SIMPLY UNPROBLEMATIC!? IS NOTHING SACRED FROM THIS LINGUISTIC HELL
the way i see it, “folks” can refer to a more traditional group of people, most likely rural, and you wouldn’t call nobles or people of other high status “folks”.
but also i doubt people think it is problematic; it’s just a quirk of the English language that “chat” emerged basically out of nowhere with the closest analogue being “audience”.
But you’d call nobles or high status people “chat”?
i’d call them “pricks” but you do you
Folks or yall though. “That’s all y’all” is delightful to say