5 ms·

> cannot all be sold because they would flood the market and decrease their own value. So Bob Ross, Inc. is cleverly keeping them under lock and key and letting

> cannot all be sold because they would flood the market and decrease their own value. So Bob Ross, Inc. is cleverly keeping them under lock and key and letting the scarcity drive prices up. Personal pet-peeve. And yes, I know it doesn't really matter to most people. Still urks me. "CANT OR WONT!?"

echelon 1y ago
"I don't know, can you?" People that say that sometimes irk me with their pedantry. You don't hear it so much anymore, though, as all the people who once cared are elderly or gone. Language is mutable. I think the best thing you could do is let it go. Perhaps even ascribe a stronger meaning to this "incorrect" usage: it theoretically could be, but it won't be, because it can't be given the circumstances. Literally.
- nothrabannosir 1y ago
  Sometimes people hide behind this detail in order to absolve themselves of responsibility, though. That’s not as benign as a mere shift in language. OP may have been pointing out responsibility rather than nitpicking language. “We cannot pay you more, or we won’t be able to hit the margins the market expects from us this year.” “We can’t license this sports event for wider audiences” “We can’t sell all of Bob Ross’s paintings or their value would go down”
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 1y ago
A way into this: it's not personal choices. Milking every dollar out of anything valuable is burned into people's souls, and willfully decreasing the value is not a possibility.
- mandmandam 1y ago
  Try leaving America some time. I promise you, there are countries out there where that type of person is widely looked down on (usually the countries that had to fight off colonizers).
  - mionhe 1y ago
    I don't personally know of any, but I'd like to. Do you have some examples to share?
    - mandmandam 1y ago
      > I don't personally know of any Like I said, just look at countries which resisted colonization. For example - one of the fundamental mechanics of colonization is to find people willing to sell out their countrymen for personal profit. While there are always a few people like this, it's far from the norm; and those people are remembered with searing hostility. A specific example that comes to mind: British land-owners exacting high rents on Irish farmers would often seize their property and hold a local auction. The entire town would turn out, the original farmer would make a small token bid to buy back their farm, and no one would bid against them. Ireland also invented boycotts, where the entire village would shun scummy landlords. Egalitarianism isn't just a reaction to colonizers though - it's the default state of humanity [0]. And research shoes that placing material possessions at the centre of your life is inversely correlated to your emotional well-being [1]. Pretty hard to believe that this would be the default. So, American culture is clearly twisted. It might not be the most perverse in the world... But it's up there. This is a fact well recognized in the world, and almost entirely ignored in America itself. Yes, on an individual basis, Americans can be quite lovely. Friendly and well meaning, might go out of their way to help you, and so on. Sure. But the fact that Americans can really believe that humanity, at its core, is willing to sell out their neighbors for profit says everything about Americans and nothing about humanity. 0 - https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/yes-our-ancient-ancestors-were-egalitarian-b32df87bed57 https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/yes-our-ancient-ances... 1 - https://time.com/22257/heres-proof-buying-more-stuff-actually-makes-you-miserable/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://time.com/22257/heres-proof-buying-more-stuff-actuall...
  - 1y ago
smeej 1y ago
I guess you're the first person I've seen use it, so it can't rise to the level of pet peeve for me, but using "urks" instead of "irks" made me cringe on about as visceral a level!

echelon 1y ago

"I don't know, can you?" People that say that sometimes irk me with their pedantry. You don't hear it so much anymore, though, as all the people who once cared are elderly or gone. Language is mutable. I think the best thing you could do is let it go. Perhaps even ascribe a stronger meaning to this "incorrect" usage: it theoretically could be, but it won't be, because it can't be given the circumstances. Literally.

nothrabannosir 1y ago
Sometimes people hide behind this detail in order to absolve themselves of responsibility, though. That’s not as benign as a mere shift in language. OP may have been pointing out responsibility rather than nitpicking language. “We cannot pay you more, or we won’t be able to hit the margins the market expects from us this year.” “We can’t license this sports event for wider audiences” “We can’t sell all of Bob Ross’s paintings or their value would go down”

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

makeitdouble 1y ago

A way into this: it's not personal choices. Milking every dollar out of anything valuable is burned into people's souls, and willfully decreasing the value is not a possibility.

mandmandam 1y ago
Try leaving America some time. I promise you, there are countries out there where that type of person is widely looked down on (usually the countries that had to fight off colonizers).
- mionhe 1y ago
  I don't personally know of any, but I'd like to. Do you have some examples to share?
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    > I don't personally know of any Like I said, just look at countries which resisted colonization. For example - one of the fundamental mechanics of colonization is to find people willing to sell out their countrymen for personal profit. While there are always a few people like this, it's far from the norm; and those people are remembered with searing hostility. A specific example that comes to mind: British land-owners exacting high rents on Irish farmers would often seize their property and hold a local auction. The entire town would turn out, the original farmer would make a small token bid to buy back their farm, and no one would bid against them. Ireland also invented boycotts, where the entire village would shun scummy landlords. Egalitarianism isn't just a reaction to colonizers though - it's the default state of humanity [0]. And research shoes that placing material possessions at the centre of your life is inversely correlated to your emotional well-being [1]. Pretty hard to believe that this would be the default. So, American culture is clearly twisted. It might not be the most perverse in the world... But it's up there. This is a fact well recognized in the world, and almost entirely ignored in America itself. Yes, on an individual basis, Americans can be quite lovely. Friendly and well meaning, might go out of their way to help you, and so on. Sure. But the fact that Americans can really believe that humanity, at its core, is willing to sell out their neighbors for profit says everything about Americans and nothing about humanity. 0 - https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/yes-our-ancient-ancestors-were-egalitarian-b32df87bed57 https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/yes-our-ancient-ances... 1 - https://time.com/22257/heres-proof-buying-more-stuff-actually-makes-you-miserable/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://time.com/22257/heres-proof-buying-more-stuff-actuall...
- 1y ago

smeej 1y ago

I guess you're the first person I've seen use it, so it can't rise to the level of pet peeve for me, but using "urks" instead of "irks" made me cringe on about as visceral a level!