4 ms·

Fine, what would making these points in a more palatable way look like, exactly?

by helpfulmandrill 3y ago

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?
        noptd 3y ago
- _proofs 3y ago
  this feels like a straw-man to deflect away from the actual point. i really wish your message met my standards, so i am just going to put my fingers in my ears until it does. ..hyperbole aside.. semantics are important, but only when definitions need to be clear. anything else is just darma battles for the sake of darma battles, and avoiding the discussion.
  - jzb 3y ago
    It is indeed a common tactic to focus on the terminology rather than the message, which is why it's so frustrating when someone you largely agree with chooses terminology that makes it so easy to do. This is one of those "you can be right, or you can be successful" situations. Everybody can rally behind "enshittification" and make it super-easy for the actual message to be dismissed, or we could find a term that doesn't sound like it was coined by an edgelord. The folks who are won over / have adopted "enshittification" aren't the audience that needs winning over. So what language and messaging is going to work for that next group that might actually turn the tide?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  It's not even the swear word, I'm very fond of calling bullshit on things to make my point bluntly. it's the combination of a swear word with the pomposity of en____ification. I get that Doctorow is trying to make a point about tech marketing as posturing about intellectuality of effort and nobility of purpose, while actually producing shit for easy money. But what works as a clever inside joke among friends limits it for a wider audience, and makes anyone saying it sound like a snarky nerd trying too hard to be clever. This is a good way to get (metaphorically) stuffed in a locker, ie to have your valid concerns ignored and mocked.

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?
      - noptd 3y ago
_proofs 3y ago
this feels like a straw-man to deflect away from the actual point. i really wish your message met my standards, so i am just going to put my fingers in my ears until it does. ..hyperbole aside.. semantics are important, but only when definitions need to be clear. anything else is just darma battles for the sake of darma battles, and avoiding the discussion.
- jzb 3y ago
  It is indeed a common tactic to focus on the terminology rather than the message, which is why it's so frustrating when someone you largely agree with chooses terminology that makes it so easy to do. This is one of those "you can be right, or you can be successful" situations. Everybody can rally behind "enshittification" and make it super-easy for the actual message to be dismissed, or we could find a term that doesn't sound like it was coined by an edgelord. The folks who are won over / have adopted "enshittification" aren't the audience that needs winning over. So what language and messaging is going to work for that next group that might actually turn the tide?
anigbrowl 3y ago
It's not even the swear word, I'm very fond of calling bullshit on things to make my point bluntly. it's the combination of a swear word with the pomposity of en____ification. I get that Doctorow is trying to make a point about tech marketing as posturing about intellectuality of effort and nobility of purpose, while actually producing shit for easy money. But what works as a clever inside joke among friends limits it for a wider audience, and makes anyone saying it sound like a snarky nerd trying too hard to be clever. This is a good way to get (metaphorically) stuffed in a locker, ie to have your valid concerns ignored and mocked.