Kupek wrote:Zeus, read this essay on cursing:
Why We Curse
In particular, pay attention to this paragraph near the end:
Language has often been called a weapon, and people should be mindful about where to aim it and when to fire. The common denominator of taboo words is the act of forcing a disagreeable thought on someone, and it's worth considering how often one really wants one's audience to be reminded of excrement, urine, and exploitative sex. Even in its mildest form, intended only to keep the listener's attention, the lazy use of profanity can feel like a series of jabs in the ribs. They are annoying to the listener and a confession by the speaker that he can think of no other way to make his words worth attending to.
Clearly what you are doing is not exactly the same, but it's similar. It's why we find your pet names so annoying. You're forcing us to think about the childishness of "Microshaft" and "Shitsa" while we're trying to read your argument. It's annoying, and it distracts us from thinking about what you are saying. By doing it, you're
discouraging us from paying attention to your point.
It also puts the cart before the horse: your argument is usually about what that company did wrong, but in order to not be annoyed with your pet name, we need to already agree with you. Let your arguments stand on their own.
We're only human. It's possible for us to extract just your argument from what you wrote, but it takes effort to get over the silly pet names. Why force us to do that? It's easier to just ignore everything than spending the mental effort to remove your bias from the statement so that
we can approach your argument without bias.
Language as a weapon? Are you fucking kidding me? That's a huge fucking problem with many people I've noticed, they see disagreements/arguments as destructive, you vs me bullshit. Regardless of how strongly opinions are expressed, you should never view it in a destructive manner. Filter out the meaning and argue on those merits; keep arguments constructive. For once, assume the person is just expressing an opinion as opposed to conducting an attack. If the person is only going to do personal attacks without actually making a point, then there's no reason to continue with the conversation (hence my decree never to have anything but a superficial discussion with Seek). But to even have the mentality that language is EVER a weapon is idiocy. That's an extremely childish way to approach conversation and shows what kind of bias this guy really has.
Enough of this guy, back to the discussion at hand. If you know for a fact that those pet names are an expression of frustration as opposed to a lack of a "way to make my words worth attending to" or enforcing a bias upon others, is it not then up to the reader to use their judgment to get past it? The onus can also be on the reader/audience as well it's not always solely on the shoulders of the speaker.
I'm not writing an essay here or engaging in a formal debate, I'm partaking in discussions in an informal social setting. When conversing with others, there's always idiosyncrasies of the speaker you need to take into account. You can call it "context" or "intent" or whatever. But basically, there's more to the meaning than simply the definition of the words themselves or even a common "meaning" to the phrase, yes? I think your reference to this essay at least recognizes such. So when Chris says "go eat a bag of dicks" it's a playful jab as opposed to an insult to be taken seriously. We know that because we know him.
It should be the same with these pet names that I give to companies. You guys know for a fact that it's an expression of frustration as opposed to forcing an opinion upon someone else; I've explained my reasoning many times to everyone. I'm not talking to people who have just met me or who are reading my posts for the first time (well, that may happen on occasion, but it's more of an exception) otherwise it would be a bit different. Same if I were engaged in writing an essay or in a formal setting. My words would be chosen far more carefully and the manner in which I would express myself would be far more subdued. So, as a reader armed with this knowledge, is it not your responsibility to brush them off as an expression of frustration rather than feeling the need to agree with my bias the same way you brush off Chris' insults because you know they're not intended to be personal or mean-spirited?
Why do I make you put the effort to get over the silly pet names? Well, it's actually not a conscious choice in that way. I'm expression my feelings/opinion, that's why I do it. I'm an accountant, I think in terms of efficiency. Rather than spending 4 sentences trying to explain my stance on the company Microsoft and their business practices, I can do all that by using the term Microshaft and you get the same meaning out of it (ie. I think they are an unscrupulous, predatory company who does nothing but extract from the consumer every penny it can, often forcefully due to their stature as basically a monopoly). Isn't that the point of conversation, to portray a point? If I can say it in one word instead of 4 sentences, why not? Hell, look at how long this freakin' post is. I could far more easily say the exact same things in about a quarter of the words if I wasn't actually trying to work within "human nature" (I disagree that what your retort is anything more than a learned behaviour - a social norm - but that's a different argument) and being careful as to not attack the reader. Since everyone is always so busy and we live in a fast moving world, isn't efficiency more welcomed?
So the next logical question is: if I know the method is an issue, why don't I change the way I express myself so as to not make it more difficult for my friends (or family)? Simple: you know for a fact the meaning behind it yet still choose to interpret it in a wrong way. Since it's been discussed it has now become a conscious choice of the reader to take it as an insult or ignore the argument rather than a subconscious one. So why should I be forced to conform to others' biases? You're telling me "don't force your opinion/bias on me" yet turn around and enforce yours upon me. I believe the common term for such behaviour is "hypocrisy".
Really, what I'm saying is: the same way you just "get past" so many other idiosyncrasies of basically everyone else here without even thinking about it, you should be able to get past my pet names now. We all do it for everyone here all the time (that's why we can still stand each other) so why is this particular one impossible for some to get past? And there's no such thing as approaching any conversation/essay/debate without bias. The reader and the writer will always have bias regardless of how hard they try not to or what their education/intelligence level is.