4 ms·

I mean, if someone has been right multiple times maybe you should take them seriously despite them not being cool enough for you in some sort of nebulous way...

hgsgm 3y ago
If you're right, and you want the world to understand, why make them fight to get there?
- helpfulmandrill 3y ago
  Fine, what would making these points in a more palatable way look like, exactly?
  - 23B1 3y ago
    Simply examine at the thinkers who do make headway with their ideas, and emulate their methodologies.
    - spicymapotofu 3y ago
      Prescribing to copy those who succeed is an answer without substance in the question of how to succeed.
      - 23B1 3y ago
        Stupid questions get stupid answers.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Literally just not gratuitiously using a swear word in the central concept you're trying to spread. That's the biggest first step, which alone would accomplish a lot. That's the whole point of the root comment.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      Gonna step aside from the root convo for a second here... >... swear word... I know that what I'm about to say doesn't necessarily apply to every vulgar word (eg, racial slang) given historical context, but specific to the word "shit", what's the difference between "shit" and "crap" or "poop"? Personally, I've struggled to understand why certain "swear words" are still considered as such, when the use of them is no different than their non-swear counterparts (eg, heck for hell, screw you for fuck you, dang/darn for damn, etc.). I'd be curious to see what other people think about this.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        They all have different connotations by convention, as does all vocabulary. "Shit" is a swear word; the other two aren't. That's all there is to it, it's convention. The same as "red" means red and doesn't mean blue. But all three would be inappropriate as economics terminology. Using a smelly bodily function as an economics metaphor is simply gratuitous and unprofessional.
        jjulius 3y ago
        "Red" means red, and not blue, by definition. "Shit" means "an exclamation of disgust, anger, or annoyance" by definition, but there's nothing that defines it as a swear word. Culturally, we view it as one, despite the fact that the way it is used, and it's meaning, is exactly the same as "crap", or "shoot". Why should we continue to put that word on some kind of "oh my gosh please don't say it" pedestal rather than just treating it as the same thing? >But all three would be inappropriate as economics terminology. Using a smelly bodily function as an economics metaphor is simply gratuitous and unprofessional. Why?
        crazygringo 3y ago
        Merriam-Webster literally has a "vulgar" tag next to each definition. But conventional usage precedes dictionary usage, and it's shared convention that "shit" is a swear word, regardless of how a dictionary classifies things. And it is absolutely not used the same way as "shoot". It carries a great deal of additional meaning. The entire purpose of swear words is to not be appropriate for polite conversation. Otherwise we wouldn't have them. > Why? Because it's unpleasant to come across gratuitously offensive things like smelly bodily functions. If I'm reading an article about economics and business policy, I don't want to be interrupted by something unpleasant that is totally unconnected to the subject at hand. I don't want a close-up photo of a pimple being popped either, as a gratuitous visual analogy for how resources are extracted from an economy. Does that satisfy you?
23B1 3y ago
Reality: tone is just as important as content when it comes to human communication.
- helpfulmandrill 3y ago
  The snarky tone of prefacing your comment with "Reality:" is making me want to disregard your point entirely, so maybe you're right... ;)
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Well that's why your name here is helpfulmandrill and not John Doe, age 23 working at MegaCorp graduated from Acedemia University. There's a certain separation from "reality" that the internet affords itself, to some degree.

hgsgm 3y ago

If you're right, and you want the world to understand, why make them fight to get there?

helpfulmandrill 3y ago
Fine, what would making these points in a more palatable way look like, exactly?
- 23B1 3y ago
  Simply examine at the thinkers who do make headway with their ideas, and emulate their methodologies.
  - spicymapotofu 3y ago
    Prescribing to copy those who succeed is an answer without substance in the question of how to succeed.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      Stupid questions get stupid answers.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Literally just not gratuitiously using a swear word in the central concept you're trying to spread. That's the biggest first step, which alone would accomplish a lot. That's the whole point of the root comment.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Gonna step aside from the root convo for a second here... >... swear word... I know that what I'm about to say doesn't necessarily apply to every vulgar word (eg, racial slang) given historical context, but specific to the word "shit", what's the difference between "shit" and "crap" or "poop"? Personally, I've struggled to understand why certain "swear words" are still considered as such, when the use of them is no different than their non-swear counterparts (eg, heck for hell, screw you for fuck you, dang/darn for damn, etc.). I'd be curious to see what other people think about this.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      They all have different connotations by convention, as does all vocabulary. "Shit" is a swear word; the other two aren't. That's all there is to it, it's convention. The same as "red" means red and doesn't mean blue. But all three would be inappropriate as economics terminology. Using a smelly bodily function as an economics metaphor is simply gratuitous and unprofessional.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        "Red" means red, and not blue, by definition. "Shit" means "an exclamation of disgust, anger, or annoyance" by definition, but there's nothing that defines it as a swear word. Culturally, we view it as one, despite the fact that the way it is used, and it's meaning, is exactly the same as "crap", or "shoot". Why should we continue to put that word on some kind of "oh my gosh please don't say it" pedestal rather than just treating it as the same thing? >But all three would be inappropriate as economics terminology. Using a smelly bodily function as an economics metaphor is simply gratuitous and unprofessional. Why?
        crazygringo 3y ago
        Merriam-Webster literally has a "vulgar" tag next to each definition. But conventional usage precedes dictionary usage, and it's shared convention that "shit" is a swear word, regardless of how a dictionary classifies things. And it is absolutely not used the same way as "shoot". It carries a great deal of additional meaning. The entire purpose of swear words is to not be appropriate for polite conversation. Otherwise we wouldn't have them. > Why? Because it's unpleasant to come across gratuitously offensive things like smelly bodily functions. If I'm reading an article about economics and business policy, I don't want to be interrupted by something unpleasant that is totally unconnected to the subject at hand. I don't want a close-up photo of a pimple being popped either, as a gratuitous visual analogy for how resources are extracted from an economy. Does that satisfy you?

23B1 3y ago

Reality: tone is just as important as content when it comes to human communication.

helpfulmandrill 3y ago
The snarky tone of prefacing your comment with "Reality:" is making me want to disregard your point entirely, so maybe you're right... ;)
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Well that's why your name here is helpfulmandrill and not John Doe, age 23 working at MegaCorp graduated from Acedemia University. There's a certain separation from "reality" that the internet affords itself, to some degree.