3 ms·
The different possible origins of this phrase are interesting. The article mentions a couple, and there's some in the comments here. I've always seen it as I'm
by BFay 12y ago
The different possible origins of this phrase are interesting. The article mentions a couple, and there's some in the comments here.
I've always seen it as I'm saying "no" to alleviate any doubt the other person had that I did not agree with their statement.
The conversation might go:
A. I really think "OK Computer" is the best Radiohead album.
B. No, totally!
But the implication is more like:
A. I think "OK Computer" is the best Radiohead album. Am I crazy for not picking "Kid A" or "In Rainbows?"
B. No, I don't think you're crazy for liking "OK Computer" the best. I totally agree with you.
Does anybody else see it this way? (Please respond with "No, totally!" (It's okay if you don't like "OK Computer"))
- mrebus 12y agoI agree with this. in the lena DUNHAM case she seems to be affirming maron's assumptions. The question implies that if you don't agree with me I have totally misunderstood you as a person. If she replied with yeah, ok(or any other negative word), she would be communicating her new knowledge of marons inability to relate and the either dismissing the statement or rejecting it. Much conversation is to relate as apposed to communicating specific ideas. on a slight tangent that new usage of random to mean unexpected is more actually meant to me of all the actions I've seen you take I would not have predicted this on.