Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have no problem with what you said, as there's an acknowledgement that your choices can face consequences.

Every generation leaves behind huge numbers of individuals who do not evolve their usage of certain words. And every generation struggles with the previous' generation's collection of those people.



>Every generation leaves behind huge numbers of individuals who do not evolve their usage of certain words. And every generation struggles with the previous' generation's collection of those people.

Fair enough. But it seems to me that as long as people can make themselves understood and aren't actively engaging in douchebaggery, why should anyone care?

While I encourage and respect others' ability to speak their mind, I'm amazed at how invested some folks (and they are of all stripes, too) are in telling other people what to say, do or think.

We used to call such folks "busybodies"[0].

And there used to be a stock phrase to use when interacting with such people:

  Mind your own fucking business.
Which usually didn't work, but made one's position pretty clear.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/busybody

Edit: Fixed typo (you/your).


I think the word "actively" is doing a lot of work there.


>I think the word "actively" is doing a lot of work there.

I'm sorry. What are you trying to say? I honestly don't understand. I used the word in it's generally accepted usage (see below).

Actively (adv.):

1. in a way that involves deliberate and vigorous engagement or effort:

[Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/actively ]

How is that word doing anything other than standing in for the concept above?

A quick google search for the phrase "x is doing a lot of work there" netted just this one "relevant" result[0].

That link appears to think it's roughly similar to "that requires some unpacking."

If that's the sense in which you used that phrase, I'd be very interested to hear what, exactly you think needs to be "unpacked."

Especially since there was no hidden/obfuscated meaning in my use of "actively." In fact, I meant it exactly, no more, no less than the the definition above.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd elucidate on that. Thanks!

[0] https://nitter.1d4.us/mcmillen/status/1225100819680440322?la...


I think using a word in a way that was appropriate in living memory, and not intended to give offense, should not be policed in the slightest.


By your own admission, you use words with the intent to give offense as a form of humor.


>By your own admission, you use words with the intent to give offense as a form of humor.

I think you're talking about me (nobody9999) not thegrimmest.[3]

With that in mind, what I said was "I'd add that I have a big mouth and am often deliberately inappropriate in (mostly successful) attempts at humor. But not in contexts where such things are socially unacceptable"

Let's "unpack" that. I am "deliberately[0] inappropriate[1]" in this sense:

   deliberate (adj.)
   2. characterized by awareness of the consequences

   inappropriate (adj.)
   not appropriate
which is useless without defining the term that's being negated[2]:

   appropriate (adj.)
   especially suitable
There is certainly intent, but inappropriate doesn't mean "giving offense," it means not especially suitable.

As you've implied and I agree, words have meanings. But you're ascribing a meaning to a word that isn't accurate.

Why is that? Are you unfamiliar with the word? Or are you simply making an assumption as to my motives and/or thought processes?

In either case, I'd ask that you reassess your statement.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deliberate

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inappropriate

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate

[3] Perhaps thegrimmest did say something like that, but I didn't see it. If they did, my apologies.

Edit: Fixed formatting, corrected sibling's username (thegrimmest).


You're right. I wasn't paying close attention and conflated you and thegrimmest.

The rest of your comment is bad faith condensation.

You're claiming that you're deliberately inappropriate but only when it's appropriate and never when it would give offense.

OK.


>The rest of your comment is bad faith condensation.

Is it? I (unlike you) didn't quote me out of context.

I (unlike you, despite being asked to do so several times) responded with specific informattion to clarify my point.

I (unlike you) assumed good faith on your part and attempted to more clearly explain my thoughts. You did nothing of the sort and made a point of putting words in my mouth that I never said or implied, and don't believe.

It's unfortunate, but it seems I've been caught not taking my own advice[0]. Again. More's the pity.

>You're claiming that you're deliberately inappropriate but only when it's appropriate and never when it would give offense.

Yes. That is almost exactly what I said and definitely captures my meaning. I'm glad I could (after a fashion) get my point across to you.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30265781

Edit: Fixed typo.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: