4 ms·
Am I the only one who thinks that the term sounds far too general given the apparently narrow interpretation that's intended by it? When first seeing the word,
by saghm 3y ago
Am I the only one who thinks that the term sounds far too general given the apparently narrow interpretation that's intended by it? When first seeing the word, it literally just sounded like it meant "the process of becoming shitty", and I never would have guessed that it was intended to be so specific. It seems unfortunate that the term was picked primarily for how evocative it is rather than for its clarity.
- SoftTalker 3y agoIt's a word I had not heard before this year. It's made-up. It's a Humpty-Dumpty word: it means what you want it to mean.
- bavell 3y agoNB: all words are made-up!
- saghm 3y agoSure, you can make up any new term and define it how you want, but people will carry expectations based on the word you pick; if I had been the first one to coin the term "enshittification" and defined it as "the process of making something better", pretty much everyone would be confused, and for good reason. The mismatch here isn't as severe, but almost every time I've seen the term mentioned in comments on this site there's a discussion in the replies litigating whether the usage of the term was correct, which is a tell-tale sign of there being inconsistent expectations around the meaning of a term. As an aside, it's interesting that the phenomenon of expectations around the meaning of terms goes beyond obvious relationships to existing known words but even to the way a word sounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect
- Ensorceled 3y agoThe En prefix means “causes to be”. Things can become shitty but “en” changes it to a deliberate act. Thus shitification is process of becoming shitty but enshitification is the act of making things shitty. So, it’s not as general a term as you are implying and definitely the usage in this article doesn’t make sense.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- saghm 3y agoWhy does "causes to be" necessarily imply intention? I don't think that's nearly as definitive as you're claiming. > It’s not as general a term as you are implying My point is that even if the term isn't "supposed" to be general it definitely sounds like that to a non-trivial number of people, which is why these sort of discussions crop up almost every time the term gets mentioned in comment threads on this site.
- Ensorceled 3y agoIf your boss said, "This Wilson project is critical." And you said "I'll ensure it gets done by Friday." Would you expect to be fired for failing to take initiative?
- matheusiacono 3y agoYou're not the only one. On my understanding the word is a neologism, hence its meaning isn't "stable" yet.