this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22756 readers
422 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Yes yes, language changes over time. I've heard that mantra for decades and I know it. That doesn't mean there aren't language changes that aren't grating when they become fashionable (and hopefully temporary).

For me, "morals" being used as a crude catch-all application of "morality," "ethics," "integrity" or related concepts bothers me. Sentence example: "Maybe if society had morals there wouldn't be so many minorities in prison." lmayo us-foreign-policy

An even more annoying otherwise-fluent-speaker modification I see is when "conscious" is used to mean "consciousness" and "conscience" interchangeably. Sentence example: "Single mothers on welfare that steal baby formula have no conscious." It sounds like they're saying the shoplifter is not mentally aware of their own actions, not that they're lacking sufficient "morals" to let their baby starve for the sake of Rules-Based Order(tm).

There's others, but those two come up enough recently, with sufficient newness, for me to bring them up here. Some old classic language quirks are so established and entrenched that even though I hate them, bringing them up would likely invite some hatemail and maybe some mystery alt accounts also sending hatemail after that. You know, because they "could care less(sic)" about what I think. janet-wink

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I really hate the misuse of the word "pretentious." A lot of people use it to mean something like "pompous" when it's root is "pretense." It's only pretentious if someone is dissembling about how much they know about something. If someone actually knows as much about a subject as the appear to then it doesn't matter how annoying they are, it's still not pretentious.

And that's my very specific pet peeve. And having this opinion is itself extremely annoying, but it's still not pretentious goddamnit

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A pretense doesn't have to be in relation to knowledge that someone holds. A pretense could be someone acting as if they're more dignified or esteemed than they are, which is practically the definition of pompous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe everyone should have the right to dignity no matter who they are

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

As do I, but I'm using 'more dignified' in the sense of claiming to have a higher social status.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

A bit pretentious eh?

Fun fact, pretentious and pretense are separated by more than 300 years.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dance that line a fair bit and while I usually mean the correct version, the one involving pretense and implications of some bigger grander something that isn't actually there, I may have annoyed you in the past by being too fast and loose with how I used it in the past. Sorry! sweat

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you have, I've already forgotten and forgiven you