Original post: aus.social (Mastodon)
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
1346 points (99.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
7420 readers
2683 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
I meant more that chat implies it could be literally anyone because it's anonymous. Like when the game's developer or some guy with 100k followers suddenly drops in to a little guy's stream. You wouldn't know unless they announced themselves lol