Howdy folks

[CaptainFritz28]

It looks like the politics forum could use a bit of humor, as it has been lacking in that regard lately. So, allow me to explain:
I've noticed a phenomenon in current American (and possibly other western nations) of the tendency to "cancel," as the term is called, some interesting things. One of those things has been, or at least seems to have been, the word "folks." I have seen it changed to "folx" or some other variation to... avoid offense, I presume? I don't know what's offensive about folks. Perhaps y'all can explain.

[Octavious]

The Yanks are cancelling "folks"? I don't suppose they could cancel "y'all" and "I could care less" while they're at it? This could be an exciting first step in the restoration of the English language in the Americas

[orathaic]

I am not aware of any cancellation of folks. I would suspect that folx is along the lines of other words changes where an X (as in Mr, Ms, Mx) is used to be gender neutral, but folks is already gender neutral?

[CaptainFritz28]

I know just as little about it as you guys. It recently came up in conversation, and I saw a video about it, so I figured it must be something. It is a threat to my existence as a Texan, thus I posted it here hoping someone might have an answer. It doesn't seem to be a major push, just seems a bit ridiculous.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm surprised to hear that anyone is going after "folks".

A while back (around the 90s), the only people I heard saying "folks" were farmers/ranchers or those City people who like to pretend they're more rustic than they actually were (e.g., diner waitresses, businessmen who wear cowboy boots, etc.). It had a certain twang that could either conjure up a positive picture of "southern hospitality", or subtly tar the person saying "folks" as a slack-jawed yokel. "Howdy" and "y'all" functioned similarly.

Come the 2000s and it seems like a lot more people were using "folks" than before. In a surprise twist, it seemed as though gay and trans groups picked up "folks" even more than everyone else. There was literally a gay television series called "Queer as Folk". Now you could get called "folk" by an old white lady at a truck stop diner or by a young gender ambiguous server at a trendy brunch place.

I'm seeing online that some queer groups prefer "folx" as a showy way of making a term that was already gender neutral into something even more gender neutral. But I think this development speaks to the popularity of "folks" in that community. It's a word that's much more often said than written anyhow, so if a group were to abandon "folks" for "folx" I'm not sure how we'd know other than the occasional sign or email salutation. I can't imagine any of these new ends-with-x words catching on outside of hyper-academic or hyper-online spaces.

I wonder if the seeming turn against "folks" is related to the broader breakdown of urban-rural relations. The sorts of people who think language games like this are important (i.e., educated City people) want to keep the utility and pleasant folksiness of "folks", but want to very clearly signal that they have nothing in common with their rural neighbours, who they denigrate with all the old prejudices (uneducated, backwards, narrow-minded) plus all the new baggage heaped on by years of political polarization (fascist, racist, hateful).

It's too bad that "folks" and "y'all" come with baggage because they're genuinely useful. It is surprisingly awkward to refer to a group of people in standard North American English without these crutches.

[CaptainFritz28]

A rather profound explanation of it all. It is unfortunate that cities and rural areas have such a divide between them. Even if what you say is not the case, and I suspect that it is, there is still a disconnect between them, which is made even more clear when looking at political affiliation.

I use "folks" and "y'all" all the time, not because I'm trying to "be more southern" or some other ridiculous notion, but simply because, as you said, they are useful (especially the latter).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I would qualify what I said a bit too:

- I doubt the folks/folx distinctions is much of an issue beyond very particular groups (Post-secondary Students' Unions, the writing room at Ru Paul's Drag Race, those who decide what to write on the chalk boards at downtown brunch restaurants, etc.).

- The media attention "folx" would get is guaranteed to be disproportionate because it's a perfect culture war story. You get clicks from the 10% of people who feel (maybe rightly) that it's a dig at their rural way of life. You get clicks from the 10% of people who cheer it on as a genuine progressive victory. Then you get clicks from the 80% of people who are (i) confused by the whole situation, (ii) feel compelled to keep a side-eye on who's winning language games just to be sure they don't accidentally commit a faux pas, and (iii) are fascinated by how much the other 20% of people seem to really care about a non-issue.

- The deepening rural-urban divide is only one explanation among many. It's possible, nay likely, that hyper-progressive people would play language games among themselves to determine who's the most progressive, who's the most in-the-know, etc. even if it had no connection to an external political grievance. Maybe young people just like to play with language and "folx" is not especially political.

[CaptainFritz28]

All good nuance to point out. As I said in the OP, this topic is just as much for the humor as for sincerity, I don't think it is really a major issue. Either way, thanks for your perspective on the matter!

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I also find this interesting, even if it's somewhat marginal.

I'm from Alberta, which is often denigrated as the "Texas of Canada". I think Texas is fine, but no one who says this phrase means it as a compliment.

There's an ongoing debate in Alberta about the merits of cowboy culture, which ties into the larger culture war debates on colonial history, urban-rural tensions, the merits individualism and masculinity, and animal welfare. The "folks" discussion is a perfect microcosm of how these various fights are playing out in real time.

[CaptainFritz28]

Of course; things like this are always related to something larger. Sometimes that is simply a matter of culture, other times a matter of religion and worldview. This is but one page of a chapter of debate in the book of the clash of worldviews in our day.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I thought this provided some interesting insight about "folx" from a group that probably skews younger and queerer than the average WebDip forum poster: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLGBT/commen ... _vs_folks/

A quick summation of some of the various views on "folx" in that thread:
- It's just trendy slang, people like that it's quirky
- It's a special type of coded slang used to emphasize the queerness or allyship of the speaker/writer
- It's academese
- It's a longstanding alternative spelling in some areas

[CaptainFritz28]

That's about what I had thought. Thanks!

[orathaic]

In that summary, it seems it is fine. But folks isn't problematic?

So not cancelling, just a great replacement...

[CaptainFritz28]

I suppose it depends on what context it is used. I had understood it to be a cancelling, but as I learn more about it it appears I may very well have been wrong.

(Although I wouldn't call the replacement "great"... though that might just be my bias. :D)