3 ms·

> rather than empathizing, you skipped hmmmm... I had tried to convey "hey, not being listened to really sucks" but now that I re-read "That lack of weight giv

> rather than empathizing, you skipped hmmmm... I had tried to convey "hey, not being listened to really sucks" but now that I re-read "That lack of weight given to your experience as a signal of real business cost is a real problem." that's a pretty damn sterile way to express that. Also you're right that it should come first before the "here is this other perspective you should consider" bit. > You switched to first person (“how can I know...”) representing the boss. This not-so-subtly puts you above the person you’re responding to. hmmmm... really I hadn't considered that. My goal had been to suggest seeing things from the leader's perspective because they have a goal of changing leader's mind. But now that you point this out, I can see how this also creates a pompous framing. Thank you, thats helpful to know to watch out for. -------- > enumerated lecture By this do you mean I was overly verbose? Or that having things in numbers comes off as...professorially pompous? Or both? > no-one asked for ... how they should be behaving. So I had interpreted the comment as a combination of an emotional vent but also a request for advice, particularly the "I'm unsure how to solve it. What do we do..." Is this unreasonable? --------- > They made a hyperbolic comment ("literally shooting knives") > Copy-pasting a definition comes off as pedantic. > Of course they’re just exaggerating I... I guess I'm really struggling to cope with the loss of a word which is so dear to me and my ability to bridge gaps of understanding with my fellow human. Like, if the word "literally" no longer means.... _____ ...I don't even know how to express the concept without a verbose and phrase like "a way of speaking that is completely accurate and unexaggerated." that would overtax the patience of anyone. Take that away and...as far as I can see whole swaths of meaning about the world that I'd want to express are silenced. And I let the emotion of that get away with me. The word is dying. And if it affects me so deeply, I should not rage against the dying of its light but actually find a way to properly grieve it on its way.

travisjungroth 7y ago
I'm sympathetic to your concern about the use of the word "literally". It's sort of a special, meta word. But there's a subtle difference here in how they used it. They said "even if the UX is ... 'the software literally shoots knives'". They're speaking in hyperbole, not metaphor. So "literal" is somewhat appropriate. They're not directly saying that their boss wouldn't care about a bad UI. They're exaggeratedly saying that their boss wouldn't care about literal injury.
- afarrell 7y ago
  An exaggerated hypothetical as a way of saying "Here is what I'd predict about their behavior. Here is how much I trust them." Hmmmm... I'll chew on that for quite a while...
satvikpendem 7y ago
Literally has not meant what you perceive it to mean, as a wholly intentional and really existing condition, since at least the 18th century. Your response seems to nitpick to the point of pedantry, rather than addressing the steel-manned version of the argument, or even necessarily arguing the argument itself.

travisjungroth 7y ago

I'm sympathetic to your concern about the use of the word "literally". It's sort of a special, meta word. But there's a subtle difference here in how they used it. They said "even if the UX is ... 'the software literally shoots knives'". They're speaking in hyperbole, not metaphor. So "literal" is somewhat appropriate. They're not directly saying that their boss wouldn't care about a bad UI. They're exaggeratedly saying that their boss wouldn't care about literal injury.

afarrell 7y ago
An exaggerated hypothetical as a way of saying "Here is what I'd predict about their behavior. Here is how much I trust them." Hmmmm... I'll chew on that for quite a while...

satvikpendem 7y ago

Literally has not meant what you perceive it to mean, as a wholly intentional and really existing condition, since at least the 18th century. Your response seems to nitpick to the point of pedantry, rather than addressing the steel-manned version of the argument, or even necessarily arguing the argument itself.