3 ms·

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

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".
- Jensson 5y ago
  > 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. Which is exactly why it is fine to call an idea stupid. Everyone knows that people are fallible, so they know that your idea can be stupid without you being stupid. You taking that personally is stupid though, as it implies you think it is possible to be infallible.

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".

Jensson 5y ago
> 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. Which is exactly why it is fine to call an idea stupid. Everyone knows that people are fallible, so they know that your idea can be stupid without you being stupid. You taking that personally is stupid though, as it implies you think it is possible to be infallible.