Live Poll: Beware of Possible Eruptions!

Thank you, Mario. I've put them to the list. Just changed two images.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089348/mediaviewer/rm632681985/?ref_=ttch_ph_3 Matt Hunter https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/mediaviewer/rm1117269248/?ref_=ttmi_mi_48 John McClane https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/mediaviewer/rm4188308737/?ref_=ttch_ph_3_2 Paul Kersey

Thank you, mario. John McClane is not what I had on my mind. He doesn't burst out by losing control like e.g. Nathan Jessep or being psychotic like Hannibal Lecter. McClane only reacts of the terrorism threat in the Nakatomi tower to protect. That's very controlled acts of fighting. I don't know about the Chuck Norris character. Maybe it's the same there. But I've put him on the list, because I don't know about. Also Paul Kersey does not outburst uncontrolled. He outbursts on a planed vigilantism act. Another case is John Rambo, who controlls himself until the PTSD breaks out and makes him feel like in battle. So he outbursts at the jail situation and mows down a whole police office crew by his inner troubles. It always has to be a character which loses control, maybe just because of being choleric, ptsd, whatsoever, but not controlled self defense, military acts, self justice, ... and so on. Please could you please tell me about the situation of Matt Hunter? I suppose that character could also not fit. Thank you in advance, Mario.

Maybe self justice, when it happens spontanously. And military acts when they are also triggered by ptsd. So it would be an uncontrolled act. It must be unpredictable, somehow. Douglas Quaid is on the border of what I thought. I'm not sure of keeping him. Maybe I'll find a special aspect why he fits.

Btw. Annie Wilkes and Rambo fit perfect for what I intended. Annie breaks the knees of her idol, which really was a shocking moment, also the outbreak of Rambo, the outbursting guerilla-tactical fighter within the peace searching man, who unjustly get's tormented and harassed by an over-motivated provincial sheriff and his team.

Chuck Norris character out.

Thank you for telling.

Found a plausible image for Douglas Quaid. The moment when he got into the machine, when he was calm. Later he outbursted in the machine.

Hallo, ruby. Thank you for the edit-suggestion. I changed it. Sorry for the "guys". I had the impression that Americans use that also for mixed groups of men and women, colloquially.

@Breumaster, The use of "guys" in the United States to include both men and women is a fascinating linguistic phenomenon, and it's influenced by region, generation, and other demographics. While it's widely adopted as a gender-neutral plural in informal speech, its acceptance and perceived appropriateness vary. Here's a breakdown: ### Regional Usage: * **Widespread in most of the US:** "You guys" is a very common informal second-person plural across much of the United States, especially in areas where alternatives like "y'all" are not prevalent. This includes major cities on both coasts and the middle of the country. * **The South:** In the Southern US, "y'all" is the traditional and preferred gender-neutral plural. While "you guys" might still be heard, "y'all" often carries a stronger sense of local identity and gender inclusivity. Some in the Deep South might even use "gals" as a plural for women. * **Northeast/Midwest (e.g., Chicago, New York, New Jersey):** "You guys" is extremely common and often doesn't carry a gendered connotation in these regions. "Youse guys" is also heard in some areas, particularly with Irish-American influence. * **California/West Coast:** "You guys" is widely accepted as gender-neutral. Terms like "dude," "bro," and "bruh" can also be used in a gender-neutral way as interjections. ### Generational Differences: * **Older Generations (Baby Boomers and some Gen X):** Many individuals in these generations grew up with "guys" already being commonly used in a gender-neutral way for groups. They may be less likely to perceive it as exclusively masculine when used in this plural context. YouGov polling indicates that a little over a third of those aged 45 and upwards disapprove of the term. * **Younger Generations (Millennials and Gen Z):** There's a notable shift among younger generations. While many still use "guys" in a gender-neutral way, there's increasing awareness and discussion around gender-inclusive language. * **Millennials:** Many millennials have adopted "guys" as a default gender-neutral term in casual settings. * **Gen Z:** Research (like a Newsweek poll) suggests that a significant portion of Gen Z (aged 18-24) feels it's *not* okay to refer to males and females as "guys" in the workplace, with over 50% opposed. They are often more attuned to inclusive communication and may actively seek alternatives like "folks," "everyone," or "you all." This doesn't necessarily mean they *never* use it, but there's a stronger sensitivity to its potential for exclusion, especially in formal or professional contexts. ### Other Demographics/Factors: * **Context:** The perceived gender-neutrality of "guys" is highly context-dependent. * **Informal Settings:** It's most widely accepted as gender-neutral in casual, informal speech (e.g., "Hey guys, what's up?"). * **Formal/Professional Settings:** In more formal or professional environments, there's a growing push to use explicitly gender-neutral alternatives to avoid potentially excluding or offending anyone. Many workplaces and academic settings are moving away from "guys" towards terms like "team," "everyone," "folks," or "you all." * **Speaker's Gender:** While women also use "you guys" to address mixed-gender or all-female groups, some studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that it might be more likely to be perceived as exclusive when used by men addressing mixed or all-female groups. * **Listener's Perception:** Ultimately, the impact of "guys" depends on the listener. Some women, regardless of region or generation, find it inherently masculine and prefer not to be included under that umbrella. This often stems from a broader awareness of male-default language. * **Singular vs. Plural:** It's crucial to distinguish. "Guy" in the singular almost universally refers to a male. "Guys" in the plural, particularly in the second person ("you guys"), has evolved to often mean "people" or "everyone." In summary, while "guys" as a gender-neutral plural is deeply entrenched in American English, especially informally, there's an ongoing evolution in language and an increasing emphasis on inclusive communication. Younger generations and those particularly sensitive to gender equity are more likely to question and avoid its use, especially in settings where inclusivity is paramount.

Thank you, Dan. An interesting insight. It's more complicated than I thought. In Germany it's the same, to be true. But most people don't like it. They see it as a form of speech police. I try to do it right, but sometimes I glitch a little. So I won't say "Hey guys!" to groups which I don't know. ... could cause troubles I don't want. Even though I'm not really fit with the gendering, I accept, when a girl is a guy, a girl is born as a guy. I also accept all the LGBTQIA+++. Why not? It's just a little harsh sometimes when I forget to gender in speech. It makes my day more complicated, even though I accept the intension. I was eased somhow when I saw youtubers greet them "guys" meaning both, men and women.

Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Buddies. :D

Thank you, Kirk. :D