3 ms·

You have incorrectly interpreted the thread. It literally starts with Feynman saying, "That's stupid," and the subsequent poster claims that it is to be implied

You have incorrectly interpreted the thread. It literally starts with Feynman saying, "That's stupid," and the subsequent poster claims that it is to be implied the idea is stupid, not the person. I point out that lacking "that idea", it becomes code.

slingnow 5y ago
So can you explain exactly what the "that" in "That's stupid" is referring to?
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  You are free to say whatever you want and speak however you like. Just remember not everyone fills in the blanks the same way, and when being critical it is important to be specific. If that bothers you and you want to grind away at it to prove your way of speaking is correct, good luck with that. I hope you end up working with people who feel the same way.
  - inputvolch 5y ago
    You didn't answer the question, and instead leapt to something hand wavey about how people fill in blanks. Nobody is grinding away at anything, perhaps other than yourself. It seems many people here are mystified by your unyielding interpretation of a two word sentence and nobody can seem to get a straight answer out of you, other than repeating the truism that "it's not obvious".
OnlineGladiator 5y ago
It's not code. "That's stupid" is short for "that idea is stupid." There's no way to change it to "that idea is stupid and therefore you are too" without the person making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure someone is to assume that.
- jolmg 5y ago
  > without the person making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure someone is to assume that. Not necessarily. There are social environments where things aren't said directly, but rather communicated through choice of words, body language and actions. People can make their thoughts abundantly clear without saying them directly, and some would expect you to understand even if they don't communicate it directly. Figuring out if a person/group says things directly or indirectly is part of the code. It's not necessarily about insecurity. Even a person secure in their own abilities can benefit from understanding when people communicate heavily between the lines.
  - OnlineGladiator 5y ago
    I think this is moving the goalposts. Yes, I agree that nonverbal communication matters. And I understand it's possible there is some code to communication, similar to how different cultures use words differently. But that's not what's being discussed. "That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone. You need to invent additional context to interpret this differently.
    - jolmg 5y ago
      > But that's not what's being discussed. "That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone. What I meant is that people don't only ever say you're stupid by super-directly saying "you're stupid". "That's stupid" is not a big leap. Yes, context is key to interpretation.
- rspeele 5y ago
  It's not much of a leap. "Stupid" is a judgement of intelligence. Ideas don't have intelligence, people do. To say something is "stupid" is to say that's it's the product of unintelligent thinking. Somebody calling my idea "stupid" may not be saying that I'm universally stupid, but they're at least saying that I was momentarily stupid to suggest that idea. Same thing if you call my idea "retarded" or "idiotic", or conversely, "smart" or "clever". The argument could be made that we should all be rational beings of pure logic, incapable of taking personal offense or being emotionally slighted or discouraged by such judgements. But we're not. And if we were, we would also be capable of limiting our output to objective conclusions such as "that won't work" rather than subjective judgements such as "it was foolish to suggest that it could".
FalconSensei 5y ago
- Hey, I have this idea where xyz... - That's stupid It's clearly talking about the idea. No one says "That's X" when referring to someone. When someone shows me a painting and I say "That's beautiful", I'm obviously referring to the painting, right?
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  No. It is not obvious. That's the whole point of this discussion.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    It’s not obvious? So there is a chance “that’s beautiful” means that the person showing him the painting is beautiful? I’m mystified.
    - rspeele 5y ago
      > So there is a chance “that’s beautiful” means that the person showing him the painting is beautiful? No, but I think the choice of adjective is important. Suppose instead of saying "That's a beautiful painting" I said "That's a masterful painting". The sentence structure is the same. The adjective is still modifying "painting". I'm still saying the painting is good. But the word I chose more directly implies a judgement of the artist: I am describing the painting as the product of a master painter. I get the same impression from hearing "stupid idea". Stupid is a description of intelligence, thinking ability, aptitude: attributes which lie with the idea's originator, not with the idea itself.
      - FalconSensei 5y ago
        You wouldn't say "that's a stupid person" unless you were talking about a 3rd person
  - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
    How is that not obvious? Do you hold that position?

slingnow 5y ago

So can you explain exactly what the "that" in "That's stupid" is referring to?

SavantIdiot 5y ago
You are free to say whatever you want and speak however you like. Just remember not everyone fills in the blanks the same way, and when being critical it is important to be specific. If that bothers you and you want to grind away at it to prove your way of speaking is correct, good luck with that. I hope you end up working with people who feel the same way.
- inputvolch 5y ago
  You didn't answer the question, and instead leapt to something hand wavey about how people fill in blanks. Nobody is grinding away at anything, perhaps other than yourself. It seems many people here are mystified by your unyielding interpretation of a two word sentence and nobody can seem to get a straight answer out of you, other than repeating the truism that "it's not obvious".

OnlineGladiator 5y ago

It's not code. "That's stupid" is short for "that idea is stupid." There's no way to change it to "that idea is stupid and therefore you are too" without the person making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure someone is to assume that.

jolmg 5y ago
> without the person making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure someone is to assume that. Not necessarily. There are social environments where things aren't said directly, but rather communicated through choice of words, body language and actions. People can make their thoughts abundantly clear without saying them directly, and some would expect you to understand even if they don't communicate it directly. Figuring out if a person/group says things directly or indirectly is part of the code. It's not necessarily about insecurity. Even a person secure in their own abilities can benefit from understanding when people communicate heavily between the lines.
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  I think this is moving the goalposts. Yes, I agree that nonverbal communication matters. And I understand it's possible there is some code to communication, similar to how different cultures use words differently. But that's not what's being discussed. "That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone. You need to invent additional context to interpret this differently.
  - jolmg 5y ago
    > But that's not what's being discussed. "That's stupid" is referring to something being stupid, not someone. What I meant is that people don't only ever say you're stupid by super-directly saying "you're stupid". "That's stupid" is not a big leap. Yes, context is key to interpretation.
rspeele 5y ago
It's not much of a leap. "Stupid" is a judgement of intelligence. Ideas don't have intelligence, people do. To say something is "stupid" is to say that's it's the product of unintelligent thinking. Somebody calling my idea "stupid" may not be saying that I'm universally stupid, but they're at least saying that I was momentarily stupid to suggest that idea. Same thing if you call my idea "retarded" or "idiotic", or conversely, "smart" or "clever". The argument could be made that we should all be rational beings of pure logic, incapable of taking personal offense or being emotionally slighted or discouraged by such judgements. But we're not. And if we were, we would also be capable of limiting our output to objective conclusions such as "that won't work" rather than subjective judgements such as "it was foolish to suggest that it could".

FalconSensei 5y ago

- Hey, I have this idea where xyz... - That's stupid It's clearly talking about the idea. No one says "That's X" when referring to someone. When someone shows me a painting and I say "That's beautiful", I'm obviously referring to the painting, right?

SavantIdiot 5y ago
No. It is not obvious. That's the whole point of this discussion.
- leephillips 5y ago
  It’s not obvious? So there is a chance “that’s beautiful” means that the person showing him the painting is beautiful? I’m mystified.
  - rspeele 5y ago
    > So there is a chance “that’s beautiful” means that the person showing him the painting is beautiful? No, but I think the choice of adjective is important. Suppose instead of saying "That's a beautiful painting" I said "That's a masterful painting". The sentence structure is the same. The adjective is still modifying "painting". I'm still saying the painting is good. But the word I chose more directly implies a judgement of the artist: I am describing the painting as the product of a master painter. I get the same impression from hearing "stupid idea". Stupid is a description of intelligence, thinking ability, aptitude: attributes which lie with the idea's originator, not with the idea itself.
    - FalconSensei 5y ago
      You wouldn't say "that's a stupid person" unless you were talking about a 3rd person
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  How is that not obvious? Do you hold that position?