6 ms·

I don't know if I agree or disagree with the comment you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure you almost entirely missed its point. Tyson was called a "pendan

I don't know if I agree or disagree with the comment you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure you almost entirely missed its point. Tyson was called a "pendant" not a "pedant." A "pendant" as in "symbolic token." Also, I think the nit pick about the use of "intelligent" is incorrect. You can "act intelligent" as in "act like someone who is intelligent" and you can "act intelligently" as in "take actions that are intelligent." The original post's use of "intelligent" works with his use of "pendant."

whack 10y ago
I'm pretty sure sdf meant to say "pedant". It would be extremely weird if sdf was actually trying to call Tyson a "symbolic token" (minority?) by referring to him as a "pendant".
- aaachilless 10y ago
  > "symbolic token" (minority?) "Symbolic token" isn't at all interchangeable with "minority" in this context, so I'm not totally sure what you mean. Cheesiness is an affectation. If someone's "cheesy" they lack originality or individuality. They use canned, inauthentic phraseology in an attempt to appear a certain way. So a "cheesy scientist" would be someone attempting to appear very "sciencey" without substance. This is the sense in which a "cheesy scientist" could be considered a "symbolic token" or, loosely, a "pendant" representing the category "scientist." I agree "pendant" is a bit of an odd choice, but in the sense I just described it's not ridiculous. Also, I wouldn't make this argument about Neil Tyson, this is just how my brain put together sdf's argument.
jamescostian 10y ago
Perhaps I did misunderstand. I didn't see how "pendant" could make sense (I used to wear one, and I couldn't see how a person could be confused with a pendant). But since you thought of it as a "symbolic token", please do explain what you think Tyson symbolizes and how he is a token, like how the user whack mentioned. As for your last paragraph, I'll admit that I am not great at English and I don't understand its rules, so I'll assume you're right. Disregard that example and take this one instead: the comment used a source and gave it the number 1 instead of 0. Someone could argue that using 1 instead of 0 "gives the wrong idea of what acting intelligent is to youth" with some pedantic argument like "everything must be zero-based because think of the children/youth, we need to set the right example for them". What I'm arguing is that such an argument, just like an argument about a gramatical mistake, is weak at best. It doesn't provide much insight, it doesn't provide any solution, it just whines
- aaachilless 10y ago
  I actually agree with your original argument, and disagree with sdf's as you interpreted it. I just interpreted sdf's argument differently. I described how I came to that conclusion in response to the comment you mentioned. I think basically I assumed grammatical/syntactical correctness and a weird argument, and you and others assumed the reverse. I hope sdf clarifies because I'd actually guess I'm prone to making this kind of communication error (if I'm in error, of course).

whack 10y ago

I'm pretty sure sdf meant to say "pedant". It would be extremely weird if sdf was actually trying to call Tyson a "symbolic token" (minority?) by referring to him as a "pendant".

aaachilless 10y ago
> "symbolic token" (minority?) "Symbolic token" isn't at all interchangeable with "minority" in this context, so I'm not totally sure what you mean. Cheesiness is an affectation. If someone's "cheesy" they lack originality or individuality. They use canned, inauthentic phraseology in an attempt to appear a certain way. So a "cheesy scientist" would be someone attempting to appear very "sciencey" without substance. This is the sense in which a "cheesy scientist" could be considered a "symbolic token" or, loosely, a "pendant" representing the category "scientist." I agree "pendant" is a bit of an odd choice, but in the sense I just described it's not ridiculous. Also, I wouldn't make this argument about Neil Tyson, this is just how my brain put together sdf's argument.

jamescostian 10y ago

Perhaps I did misunderstand. I didn't see how "pendant" could make sense (I used to wear one, and I couldn't see how a person could be confused with a pendant). But since you thought of it as a "symbolic token", please do explain what you think Tyson symbolizes and how he is a token, like how the user whack mentioned. As for your last paragraph, I'll admit that I am not great at English and I don't understand its rules, so I'll assume you're right. Disregard that example and take this one instead: the comment used a source and gave it the number 1 instead of 0. Someone could argue that using 1 instead of 0 "gives the wrong idea of what acting intelligent is to youth" with some pedantic argument like "everything must be zero-based because think of the children/youth, we need to set the right example for them". What I'm arguing is that such an argument, just like an argument about a gramatical mistake, is weak at best. It doesn't provide much insight, it doesn't provide any solution, it just whines

aaachilless 10y ago
I actually agree with your original argument, and disagree with sdf's as you interpreted it. I just interpreted sdf's argument differently. I described how I came to that conclusion in response to the comment you mentioned. I think basically I assumed grammatical/syntactical correctness and a weird argument, and you and others assumed the reverse. I hope sdf clarifies because I'd actually guess I'm prone to making this kind of communication error (if I'm in error, of course).