Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pmcd9]

Ok, I read it wrong, that guy was being a prescriptivist douchebag.

But still I'm not sure how to use BTQ properly.  Should you use it to point out a logical fallacy like the example given - "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly?"

[CortJstr]

Ok, I read it wrong, that guy was being a prescriptivist douchebag.

But still I'm not sure how to use BTQ properly.  Should you use it to point out a logical fallacy like the example given - "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly?"

Yes. That is the original definition of BTQ.

[wombat]

In my opinion this has become a phrase it's better to not use at all. If you use it in the original meaning most people won't understand what you are saying, and what this sort of originalist-prescriptivist always seems to lose sight of is that there is no point in talking if people don't understand what you are saying. On the other hand if you use it the way most people use it nowadays you run the risk of being irritated by someone showing off how superior he is by pointing out that you have used it wrong.

There is only one rule that really counts in these things, which is that telling people they are speaking incorrectly is being a dick to a stranger.

[Choop]

i agree wombat, and i stopped using the phrase a long while ago. i also abandoned "hopefully" because it doesn't mean what everybody seems to think it means.

[CortJstr]

I like Merriam-Webster's little rants on topics like this. Here's Hopefully: usage In the 1960s the second sense of hopefully, which dates to the early 18th century and had been in fairly widespread use since at least the 1930s, underwent a surge in popularity. A surge of criticism followed in reaction, but the criticism took no account of the grammar of adverbs. Hopefully in its second sense is a member of a class of adverbs known as disjuncts. Disjuncts serve as a means by which the author or speaker can comment directly to the reader or hearer usually on the content of the sentence to which they are attached. Many other adverbs (as interestingly, frankly, clearly, luckily, unfortunately) are similarly used; most are so ordinary as to excite no comment or interest whatsoever. The second sense of hopefully is entirely standard.

Nauseous's rant is pretty good, too.

[Gimpson]

being a dick to a stranger.

I believe the phrase you are looking for is being a cock to a stranger.

[wombat]

Essentially, all of these rules are markers of class. They allow people to distinguish "us" and "them," in this case, those of us who are educated enough to have learned a set of arbitrary, irrational rules, and those who aren't. It's just like knowing which fork to use despite the fact that any of the forks will convey food to your mouth equally well. So the more nonsensical they are, the better, because that way there's little chance that the "thems" will follow them by accident or naturally.

People have used language to hate on each other throughout recorded history, back to the people in the Bible who were killed when they couldn't pronounce 'shibboleth" correctly. Every society needs ways to decide who isn't allowed to marry their daughters. That's all there is to it.

Also: ten thousand cans to Gimpson if only in my dreams.

[jaydub]

I believe the phrase you are looking for is being a cock to a stranger.

That little sequence so closely captures the feeling of being high on mj that I get a little flashback everytime I read it.  Trippy.

[dejavroom]

Well, *some* degree of uniformization is needed to avoid that every conversation becomes a conversation about what the conversation means.

I think a useful distinction would be between rules that concern language on a functional level (that cannot be changed without causing confusion), and rules about appropriateness of usage (that cannot be changed without making the utterer look bad under a set of social/intellectual/etc scales).

I'm a little bit prescriptivist, as you can gather ("what do you mean 'a little bit'?" "YOU FIGURE IT OUT EINSTEN!")

[AugustWest]

Essentially, all of these rules are markers of class. They allow people to distinguish "us" and "them," in this case, those of us who are educated enough to have learned a set of arbitrary, irrational rules, and those who aren't. It's just like knowing which fork to use despite the fact that any of the forks will convey food to your mouth equally well. So the more nonsensical they are, the better, because that way there's little chance that the "thems" will follow them by accident or naturally.

People have used language to hate on each other throughout recorded history, back to the people in the Bible who were killed when they couldn't pronounce 'shibboleth" correctly. Every society needs ways to decide who isn't allowed to marry their daughters. That's all there is to it.

I agree that this is an use of prescriptivism, but it's not the only justification for paying attention to language rules.  In my job precision in language can be vital.  Having an well-defined lexicon and grammar can be very important if you're drafting a statute or a contract.  That doesn't have anything to do with classism.

[AugustWest]

I believe the phrase you are looking for is being a cock to a stranger.

That's also the source of the Proper Attyre for Footballe.  Sign up, y'all.  We need about 3 more playres.

[Toaster]

I tried to read this thread, and my brain wouldn't let me. My visual field went black, and my stomach regurgitated the toxins.

[wombat]

I agree that this is an use of prescriptivism, but it's not the only justification for paying attention to language rules.  In my job precision in language can be vital.  Having an well-defined lexicon and grammar can be very important if you're drafting a statute or a contract.  That doesn't have anything to do with classism.

Sure, but none of the rules that people make dick-to-a-stranger websites about have anything to do with clarity and precision. You could follow every single one of them to the letter and it would do nothing to make your writing more understandable to the reader. No one was ever confused about the meaning of a sentence because of a split infinitive, for example. In fact some of the rules might actually make it harder for you to communicate, like if you insisted on using a phrase like 'beg the question' in a sense that's increasingly becoming archaic.

A lot of the rules specifically for writing as opposed to spoken English make the point even more clearly. I want to poke myself in the eye with a stick when I see that someone has used "it's" as the possessive, but I can't pretend I don't know exactly what they mean in the context of the sentence. And plenty of shit is written with perfect punctuation.

[wombat]

I tried to read this thread, and my brain wouldn't let me. My visual field went black, and my stomach regurgitated the toxins.

I know. I swear, I want with every thread of being to lock it, but I play a wimp on the Internet so I can't do it.

[AugustWest]

Sure, but none of the rules that people make dick-to-a-stranger websites about have anything to do with clarity and precision. You could follow every single one of them to the letter and it would do nothing to make your writing more understandable to the reader. No one was ever confused about the meaning of a sentence because of a split infinitive, for example. In fact some of the rules might actually make it harder for you to communicate, like if you insisted on using a phrase like 'beg the question' in a sense that's increasingly becoming archaic.

A lot of the rules specifically for writing as opposed to spoken English make the point even more clearly. I want to poke myself in the eye with a stick when I see that someone has used "it's" as the possessive, but I can't pretend I don't know exactly what they mean in the context of the sentence. And plenty of shit is written with perfect punctuation.

Agreed.  100% Agreed.

I think another motivation is traditionalism.  The "received forms" of language that these rules teach is what we heard growing up spoken and written by people we respect (or were told to respect).  Historical figures spoke this way, so it must it must be right.