6 ms·

> The big difference is rich people can literally buy a career for their offspring Details? Where do I go to buy a career? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually

by javert 12y ago

> The big difference is rich people can literally buy a career for their offspring Details? Where do I go to buy a career? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to know.

jackvalentine 12y ago
Mom or Dad to business partner: if you want to make this deal with me, give my kid a management position somewhere on the project. Or "if you give my kid an internship then I'll give you the keys to my ski lodge for this season"
- javert 12y ago
  That is not buying a career. That's making a deal. The guy said: > rich people can literally buy a career I'm not being sarcastic here. It used to be possible to purchase a commission in the military. That is speaking historically. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't careers today you can literally purchase. Franchising comes kind of close, and running a taxi in NYC comes close. In ancient times, you could purchase the position of tax collector. Anyway, that person should not have said "literally" unless he meant it.
  - gizmo686 12y ago
    Literally - "in effect : virtually" [1]. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
    - javert 12y ago
      That isn't correct usage. (A falliable human being putting it in one particular dictionary doesn't mean it's correct.) Even someone who thinks that language should not be rule-based still should not use it, if their goal is to communicate clearly and concisely---since it does not achieve that. So ultimately, it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of language.
      - barrkel 12y ago
        Outside of a jargon context, the meaning of an English word is what the majority of word users agree it means, because that's what other people understand when the word is used. "Literally" has been debased by overuse for emphasis, and now it no longer means what it used to mean. See e.g. https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and8220literallyand8221/ https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and... and http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/language-literally-losing-its-meaning http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/lan... for more discussion.
        javert 12y ago
        If you're interested, take a look at my comment which is a nephew to your comment. Here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616
      - peteretep 12y ago
        > it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of > language If you've managed to stumble upon an English-language equivalent of Académie française or the Icelandic Language Institute, with the power to define right and wrong in English, I'm sure we'd all love a link... Generally the closest thing we have is "one particular dictionary" (OED) but it aims to be descriptive, rather the prescriptive. However, regarding: > That isn't correct usage You can probably learn something unexpected from: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706
        javert 12y ago
        When people change the language in ways that make it inferior for any reason (including due to being confusing), that is incorrect. It's also incorrect to use wood to build a house that is twice the thickness needed. It's also incorrect to build a rocket that uses an inferior type of fuel. These are not matters of social dictat. We don't need an Academie francaise for English because we should be taught the above principle in school and we should correct others when they make mistakes, in appropriate circumstances. Another principle: We should change the language to improve it when it is trivial to do so; so even if "literal" were well-established in the opposite meaning, we now know better and should stop doing it. But I do not believe it is well-established, despite the article you linked.
  - jackvalentine 12y ago
    Pedanticism of this nature is literally the key to living a frustrated and lonely life. You asked for a good faith reply and I gave it to you. You then decided to play your "trick" and point out that you're actually making a totally unrelated grammatical dispute with the original poster. I won't be falling for this again and replying to you further in the future. I hope it feels good to be "right" all the time.
    - javert 12y ago
      I wasn't playing a trick. There are times when using "literally" in the figurative sense actually makes sense, even though I don't approve. But this is not one. So I thought maybe the person actually meant it in the non-figurative sense. If you want evidence that I'm an honest person, look at my comment history. I don't go around tricking people and trying to win arguments by deception. In fact, I frequently call people out for being nasty in various ways, much like you are doing here. I can understand why you think I'm trying to trick people and I was worried that would happen. That's why I talked about historical and quasi-examples of people buying careers. I didn't want you to think or feel that I was playing a trick.
      - throwawaymsft 12y ago
        Please realize language has ambiguities and is not a program that is compiled. Deliberately nitpicking the meaning of words from someone who is generously offering to clarify a statement for you looks like a sign of bad faith. Use a charitable interpretation and figure out the idea he/she was getting at. Clearly, money/power/fame/beauty can "buy" things even if there is no currency changing hands. That is the point the previous poster was making. Wealth is influence, and influence gets you favors, like a foot into a career.
        javert 12y ago
        Yes, parts of this conversation reflect poor judgement on my part. I wasn't thinking too hard about it at the time.
        12y ago
Jun8 12y ago
I think he means that they can send their kids to Ivy League or equivalent.

by javert 12y ago

> The big difference is rich people can literally buy a career for their offspring Details? Where do I go to buy a career? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually want to know.

jackvalentine 12y ago

Mom or Dad to business partner: if you want to make this deal with me, give my kid a management position somewhere on the project. Or "if you give my kid an internship then I'll give you the keys to my ski lodge for this season"

javert 12y ago
That is not buying a career. That's making a deal. The guy said: > rich people can literally buy a career I'm not being sarcastic here. It used to be possible to purchase a commission in the military. That is speaking historically. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't careers today you can literally purchase. Franchising comes kind of close, and running a taxi in NYC comes close. In ancient times, you could purchase the position of tax collector. Anyway, that person should not have said "literally" unless he meant it.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  Literally - "in effect : virtually" [1]. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
  - javert 12y ago
    That isn't correct usage. (A falliable human being putting it in one particular dictionary doesn't mean it's correct.) Even someone who thinks that language should not be rule-based still should not use it, if their goal is to communicate clearly and concisely---since it does not achieve that. So ultimately, it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of language.
    - barrkel 12y ago
      Outside of a jargon context, the meaning of an English word is what the majority of word users agree it means, because that's what other people understand when the word is used. "Literally" has been debased by overuse for emphasis, and now it no longer means what it used to mean. See e.g. https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and8220literallyand8221/ https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and... and http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/language-literally-losing-its-meaning http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/lan... for more discussion.
      - javert 12y ago
        If you're interested, take a look at my comment which is a nephew to your comment. Here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616
    - peteretep 12y ago
      > it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of > language If you've managed to stumble upon an English-language equivalent of Académie française or the Icelandic Language Institute, with the power to define right and wrong in English, I'm sure we'd all love a link... Generally the closest thing we have is "one particular dictionary" (OED) but it aims to be descriptive, rather the prescriptive. However, regarding: > That isn't correct usage You can probably learn something unexpected from: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706
      - javert 12y ago
        When people change the language in ways that make it inferior for any reason (including due to being confusing), that is incorrect. It's also incorrect to use wood to build a house that is twice the thickness needed. It's also incorrect to build a rocket that uses an inferior type of fuel. These are not matters of social dictat. We don't need an Academie francaise for English because we should be taught the above principle in school and we should correct others when they make mistakes, in appropriate circumstances. Another principle: We should change the language to improve it when it is trivial to do so; so even if "literal" were well-established in the opposite meaning, we now know better and should stop doing it. But I do not believe it is well-established, despite the article you linked.
- jackvalentine 12y ago
  Pedanticism of this nature is literally the key to living a frustrated and lonely life. You asked for a good faith reply and I gave it to you. You then decided to play your "trick" and point out that you're actually making a totally unrelated grammatical dispute with the original poster. I won't be falling for this again and replying to you further in the future. I hope it feels good to be "right" all the time.
  - javert 12y ago
    I wasn't playing a trick. There are times when using "literally" in the figurative sense actually makes sense, even though I don't approve. But this is not one. So I thought maybe the person actually meant it in the non-figurative sense. If you want evidence that I'm an honest person, look at my comment history. I don't go around tricking people and trying to win arguments by deception. In fact, I frequently call people out for being nasty in various ways, much like you are doing here. I can understand why you think I'm trying to trick people and I was worried that would happen. That's why I talked about historical and quasi-examples of people buying careers. I didn't want you to think or feel that I was playing a trick.
    - throwawaymsft 12y ago
      Please realize language has ambiguities and is not a program that is compiled. Deliberately nitpicking the meaning of words from someone who is generously offering to clarify a statement for you looks like a sign of bad faith. Use a charitable interpretation and figure out the idea he/she was getting at. Clearly, money/power/fame/beauty can "buy" things even if there is no currency changing hands. That is the point the previous poster was making. Wealth is influence, and influence gets you favors, like a foot into a career.
      - javert 12y ago
        Yes, parts of this conversation reflect poor judgement on my part. I wasn't thinking too hard about it at the time.
      - 12y ago

Jun8 12y ago

I think he means that they can send their kids to Ivy League or equivalent.