4 ms·

Even worse is when it is put into passive language to intentionally remove the subject - which is done in political speeches to address negative outcomes. It ha

Even worse is when it is put into passive language to intentionally remove the subject - which is done in political speeches to address negative outcomes. It has the subtle effect of shifting blame from the subject. Examples [1]. "We are unable to provide refunds or exchanges for mistaken purchases" becomes "Refunds or exchanges for mistaken purchases are unable to be provided." [1] https://www.ranker.com/list/times-politicians-used-passive-voice-to-deflect-blame/ranker-news https://www.ranker.com/list/times-politicians-used-passive-v...

Thorrez 4y ago
When police describe a shooting by a suspect, they use the active voice. When they describe a shooting by an officer, they use the passive voice. > The suspect produced a semi-automatic handgun and fired numerous times striking the victim in the torso. > The suspect then ran towards the officers still armed with the sword and an officer-involved-shooting occurred. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...
- noptd 4y ago
  >Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - michaelterryio 4y ago
    Ugh, you’re so right, but they’re so right too!
    - technothrasher 4y ago
      Not really. I looked into this last time it came up, and it seems to be mostly confirmation bias. A Google search of news stories and police statements showed plenty of examples where the passive voice was used to describe suspect actions and the active voice used to describe police actions, including shootings.
      - saurik 4y ago
        I don't think anyone would claim that literally every single time that is true but only that it is a non-negligible effect. (It still might be false, but you need to try harder.)
        joebob42 4y ago
        I think though that in this case the person who needs to try harder is the one who originated the claim, not the person trying to dispute it, given that the person who made the claim originally didn't provide any evidence.
        saurik 4y ago
        It's a well-known thought process that has even been covered by places such as the Washington Post (among others, to be clear)... which I took the 30 seconds just now to find for you -- even though I think it is extreme frustrating when people whine about proactive citations for this kind of thing as it simply isn't a fair way to have a conversation -- and then when I switched back here to write this I realized that "the person who made the claim" in fact said it as well. Like, this is a well-known enough thought process that the person I responded to had already felt a need to dig into this themselves before, only they dug into it wrong as a misinterpretation of the claim. Where I'd say we currently stand is thereby "seems like a credible hypothesis worthy of discussion". If anything, I can see a more useful way to ding the original claim here -- based on my knowledge of this ongoing discussion -- but it isn't to whine about how they should have already needed to provide evidence in their initial post, and nor certainly is it "I found a bunch of counter examples". But even that seems like a non-sequitur as the interesting thing here clearly wasn't an attempt to sideline us into a discussion about police but was instead just an attempt to make a wider discussion about annoying usage of passive voice and other language shenanigans to avoid directly admitting blame or control -- which is an entirely fair point and I will strongly claim is a fully valid thing to be discussing and criticizing of this statement by Nintendo -- and while I could see reasonably pushing back on it in that light in a ton of ways, again: that set doesn't include whining about citations during a discussion and likely doesn't include defenses of oblique rebuttals :(.
  - posterboy 4y ago
    I eschew your flamebait. There was no need yo
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  AKA "past exonerative tense".
nwellnhof 4y ago
"Mistakes were made."
- phasersout 4y ago
  "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Thorrez 4y ago

When police describe a shooting by a suspect, they use the active voice. When they describe a shooting by an officer, they use the passive voice. > The suspect produced a semi-automatic handgun and fired numerous times striking the victim in the torso. > The suspect then ran towards the officers still armed with the sword and an officer-involved-shooting occurred. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...

noptd 4y ago
>Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- michaelterryio 4y ago
  Ugh, you’re so right, but they’re so right too!
  - technothrasher 4y ago
    Not really. I looked into this last time it came up, and it seems to be mostly confirmation bias. A Google search of news stories and police statements showed plenty of examples where the passive voice was used to describe suspect actions and the active voice used to describe police actions, including shootings.
    - saurik 4y ago
      I don't think anyone would claim that literally every single time that is true but only that it is a non-negligible effect. (It still might be false, but you need to try harder.)
      - joebob42 4y ago
        I think though that in this case the person who needs to try harder is the one who originated the claim, not the person trying to dispute it, given that the person who made the claim originally didn't provide any evidence.
        saurik 4y ago
        It's a well-known thought process that has even been covered by places such as the Washington Post (among others, to be clear)... which I took the 30 seconds just now to find for you -- even though I think it is extreme frustrating when people whine about proactive citations for this kind of thing as it simply isn't a fair way to have a conversation -- and then when I switched back here to write this I realized that "the person who made the claim" in fact said it as well. Like, this is a well-known enough thought process that the person I responded to had already felt a need to dig into this themselves before, only they dug into it wrong as a misinterpretation of the claim. Where I'd say we currently stand is thereby "seems like a credible hypothesis worthy of discussion". If anything, I can see a more useful way to ding the original claim here -- based on my knowledge of this ongoing discussion -- but it isn't to whine about how they should have already needed to provide evidence in their initial post, and nor certainly is it "I found a bunch of counter examples". But even that seems like a non-sequitur as the interesting thing here clearly wasn't an attempt to sideline us into a discussion about police but was instead just an attempt to make a wider discussion about annoying usage of passive voice and other language shenanigans to avoid directly admitting blame or control -- which is an entirely fair point and I will strongly claim is a fully valid thing to be discussing and criticizing of this statement by Nintendo -- and while I could see reasonably pushing back on it in that light in a ton of ways, again: that set doesn't include whining about citations during a discussion and likely doesn't include defenses of oblique rebuttals :(.
- posterboy 4y ago
  I eschew your flamebait. There was no need yo
ceejayoz 4y ago
AKA "past exonerative tense".

nwellnhof 4y ago

"Mistakes were made."

phasersout 4y ago
"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"