GEICO is Terminating Insurance Coverage of Tesla Cybertrucks, Says “This Type of Vehicle Doesn't Meet Our Underwriting Guidelines”
shoulderoforion@fedia.io to 
torquenews.com
GEICO, the second-largest vehicle insurance underwriter in the US, has decided it will no longer cover Tesla Cybertrucks. The company is terminating current Cybertruck policies and says the truck “doesn’t meet our underwriting guidelines.”
You are viewing a single comment
"their" is shorter than "his or her"
(Even if you don't care about gender inclusiveness, they is just more convenient)
Similarly, "they" is also shorter than "he/she"
If you're correcting, sincerely, then good job.
If you're trolling... also, good job.
Either way 👍
I wasn't strictly meaning to correct so much as point out a reason why it's more concise. I value the inclusive motivation too, if that was hard to tell; I just think there is another reason even if you don't care about inclusion.
It seems a lot of people are actively opposed to it though, not sure why. I'm just asking questions, you know?
😉
I’ll bet a lot of times people just start typing “he” and tack on “or she” when they catch themselves.
The best English literature doesn't follow the basis of most convenient or shortest. Sometimes there are other reasons to choose a word of phrase.
The plot of Romeo and Juliet could be rewritten in a paragraph but probably wouldn't have had the same impact.
"some teenage idiots do teenage idiot things and die. fin." roaring applause
I once heard it described as a "3 day relationship between a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old that left 6 people dead"
True, but this isn't prose or high literature. What reason do you suggest why "his or her" would be preferable to "their" in this context?
The prescriptivist "It's grammatically incorrect" argument doesn't hold much water when it has been used since middle English.
In a poem, I can see the thought:
"I tried to fit the cadence of this clause
Within the measure of this poem's form
Which has in past and present be the norm
By which this poem, too, seeks to adhere.
This is my authorial choice's cause
for my decision not to use a "their"." But if to find an alternate way to word
Your writing's pronouns strikes you as absurd
I nonetheless opine that you still ought
To make the token effort to include
With "their" all people by the same respect
That you for yourself would from them expect.
Refusing this, I feel, would be quite rude.
Comments here are a short form of writing, therefore people are allowed to phrase things and say things however they would like to. You won't know someone's intent before reading, so the way they write makes a difference.
And which intent would warrant using "he or she" rather than "they"?
They felt like it? Their brain worded the thought using "his or her"?
Yes, of course, nothing wrong there. I'm asking what's wrong with using "they" instead, given that there seems to be some pushback
I think the pushback is coming from that's how the person talk and or wanted to write the sentenc. Why was it so important to you to tell him a different way to write his sentence?
I wanted to offer a suggestion I felt is better for two independent reasons. I didn't say "you should have said", simply wrote why I consider the more inclusive they more convenient too.
I don't think there was any active "want" behind that way of writing so much as habit ("how the person talks"). Somehow a lot of people seem bent on opposing that suggestion though, and while I don't want to make assumptions, I'm starting to think it isn't out of some deep disdain for convenience.
Thats how they speak.
That's a habit, not an intent. You implied that there were some deeper intent behind using "he or she" over the shorter and more inclusive "they". Of course people are allowed to write however they want to, and they're free to ignore my suggestion. I'm wondering why people are so bent on pushing back against it - what is it about my remark that turned this whole thing into such an involved discussion?
You don't think a display of someones habits counts as their form of expression?
Edit to add: Noone is up in arms about this, its a calm discussion from my point of view. Maybe you are confused there is even an alternate perspective though?
Not an intentional expression, no. If I say something out of habit without thinking, that's out of affect, not intent. If I then double down on that habit when asked about it, it's an intentional expression.
Maybe I came across too strongly in my first comment, but it was really just meant to be a comment on how "they" is more convenient on top of being more inclusive as a suggestion, not as an attack. I think it's better to use it for two otherwise unrelated reasons, and put forth the one not hinging on ideology.
I am confused, yes. You'd either have to be stubborn about not changing habits or so opposed to inclusiveness that you'd rather write something longer to intentionally exclude. I didn't want to assume either and just chalked it up to habit and wanted to suggest an alternative.
Well I wasnt the one who said it, I'm not sure they ever doubled down on it. Maybe they did take your advice already.
I just don't want to limit how people express themselves, because I want to know their perspective. Its more important to me that someone express themselves honestly rather than they are politically correct.
Thats not to say you are wrong to make the point you are now. Ideally people would be able to talk without offending other people.
They didn't. Hence my insistence: the original comment probably wasn't intentional as such, nor do I ascribe any malice.
Plenty other people felt the need to ascribe intent, however. That's what I don't understand - why are people so eager to defend a phrasing and potential intent without ever consulting the original commenter?
I made a suggestion and argument why I find "they" better, without ideological insistence or being forceful about it. There's no limiting going on.
The above note and specific context aside, I don't categorically agree. While reasonable argument should be the first resort, there are honest sentiments rejecting reasonable argument that deserve no expression, no space and no opportunity to spread hateful rhetoric. I think it's more important to foster a tolerant environment, suppressing intolerance if necessary to preserve that environment, than to grant universal freedom even to enemies of freedom.
Again, this probably doesn't apply here - I doubt the original comment made a point of exclusion. We're getting way off topic here when all I wanted was to offer an alternative argument for inclusive phrasing.
To return to the post, I would say it comes across wrong when you ignore the entire content of the persons post, and only comment about the he or she part. I understand that part is important to you, but you literally ignored the point they were making.
I would suggest to respond to the point, and then make the suggestion you did if that was important to you.
But if I have nothing of substance to add to the point? "This. Also..."? I don't have a Cybertruck or know anyone that does; I can't comment on their quality.
Besides, it wasn't even particularly important to me, just a quick aside. If I care deeply about making people use "they" for inclusion reasons, I'd have written more than a sentence.
Maybe your T key is broken?
Then the original comment would read
That sounds more like someone that would deffend the cyber truck I suppose.
Nice ditty.
Regional dialect, fluidity of language, variety - even habit.
Oh, I do respectfully disagree with that, especially when you cite medieval English but reference an American language dictionary as your source.
I could just as viably give "his or hers" as equally valid as "theirs", because it is. We're not newspaper headline writers, nobody penalises us if we use a few more characters for any reason. And you could switch back and forth between them both for variety.
Thank you :)
Those explain why it might be the first thing people reach to, but I wasn't trying to demonise that. I was trying to offer an argument for the alternative that I consider both more convenient to write and read and more inclusive. Habits can be changed.
Does the nature of the source invalidate the content and points it makes? English is still English, and I was looking for a source that wasn't Wikipedia, but also was publically accessible. I could have just copied all of Wikipedia's references, but most of them are books or journals that I don't expect people to have access to and didn't individually check. We could debate here what burden of proof is to be expected in an online debate, but I didn't think the matter to be worth serious discussion.
The point is the same: there are plenty of historical examples of it being used. To be clear, this is a pre-emptive counterargument to a point I've occasionally seen made: That the singular they was a new invention and should be rejected on that ground. If past usage has no bearing on your current decision, that argument obviously holds no weight.
In the latter case, I contend that the increasing spread, particularly in the context of that spread, legitimises its use for that purpose. I fall in with the descriptivists: Rules should describe contemporary usage, not prescribe it.
Ultimately, I believe using "they" for gender neutrality is more inclusive for identities outside the binary. I consider the difference in usage trivial enough that the difference in respect justifies it.
But that's not what you did, at first anyway. You were looking for an argument. You asked someone to justify something that to you is a slight, with no way of knowing whether the other person intended it that way. They got defensive because they have no idea what you're getting at, from their perspective you're just saying "you said something wrong, this is right" without explaining why.
Irrelevant. You don’t get to grammar like Shakespeare did.