Condescending Words

[ThinkMinty]

Some words just ooze condescension and disdain, pretty much regardless of context.

For the purposes of silliness and crowdsourcing, let's list some of 'em, or not.

First up: Actually.

[Ninja_Prawn]

pretty much regardless of context.

You're going to run into a lot of trouble here. Given this clause, it will only take one counterexample to derail the thread...

[Comissar]

I use 'actually' regularly in a scientific context when introducing a problem. Example; "Our models of X suggest that we should see phenomenon Y when condition Z is met. What we actually see is phenomenon A. This suggests that our model of X is either inherently flawed, or cannot accurately predict X whilst condition Z is being met. The purpose of this study is to examine what may be causing this discrepancy between the model and the actual data."

So on, and so forth. Context is everything for deciding if something is condescending or not, the words themselves very rarely play into it.

[Aedilred]

For me the one which always gets my hackles up, whether it's directed at me or someone else, is "wrong". Especially when it's used to start a reply.

e.g.

"This thread will end in trouble"
"Wrong, it'll all be fine."

I think it's the implied dismissiveness of the contradicted opinion as having any validity at all, as well as a claim to some sort of objective rectitude (never, of course, conclusively sourced) that makes it so irritating, whether in person or online.

[Maryring]

"Fine" whenever it's used to start a sentence.

"Fine. Let's do it."
"Fine. You're right."
"Fine."

Much condescending. Very lack of care.

[Brother Oni]

"Fine" whenever it's used to start a sentence.

"Fine. Let's do it."
"Fine. You're right."
"Fine."

Much condescending. Very lack of care.

"How are you?"

"Fine, thanks. How are you?"

[Wardog]

Some words just ooze condescension and disdain, pretty much regardless of context.

For the purposes of silliness and crowdsourcing, let's list some of 'em, or not.

First up: Actually.

Actually, in Bangladesh, they seem to use "actually" to start every conversation.

(Or at least, when I was there a couple of years ago, that was how everyone I met talked).

[Flickerdart]

For me the one which always gets my hackles up, whether it's directed at me or someone else, is "wrong". Especially when it's used to start a reply.

e.g.

"This thread will end in trouble"
"Wrong, it'll all be fine."

I think it's the implied dismissiveness of the contradicted opinion as having any validity at all, as well as a claim to some sort of objective rectitude (never, of course, conclusively sourced) that makes it so irritating, whether in person or online.
"I was wrong to get those badgers drunk."
"The badgers took it the wrong way when I tried to take away their liquor."

[Lethologica]

You're going to run into a lot of trouble here. Given this clause, it will only take one counterexample to derail the thread...
Thread derailment accelerated. :smalltongue:

Word + context will make this more effective. For example: 'really', when applied to someone else's actions/opinions/beliefs. "Do you really think that...?"

[AMFV]

Thread derailment accelerated. :smalltongue:

Word + context will make this more effective. For example: 'really', when applied to someone else's actions/opinions/beliefs. "Do you really think that...?"

That's not necessarily condescending though either. The emphasis makes it so. "Do you really think that's the best way to do that?" is a genuine inquiry, you're trying to find out if that's actually their opinion or what they're presenting "Do you really think that's the best way to do that?" is a condescending statement.


"Fine" whenever it's used to start a sentence.

"Fine. Let's do it."
"Fine. You're right."
"Fine."

Much condescending. Very lack of care.

Fine day for a picnic, isn't it?

[Jormengand]

Word + context will make this more effective. For example: 'really', when applied to someone else's actions/opinions/beliefs. "Do you really think that...?"

"Really? You agree? That's wonderful!"

[Freemason Than]

A topic about condescension?
How droll.

[sktarq]

Yes but droll evokes dry amusement. It would only be condescending if that amusement was at another's expense.

Personally, I don't think there are any condescending words. Many if not most word can be used in such a manner. Rare words often are considered such because the use of a wide vocabulary is seen by some as condescending, in a "I'm so smart/educated" way that implies that the person spoken to is not.

[Knaight]

Dearie. There are likely counter examples, but the last two letters only tend to appear when it's being used to condescend at people.

[Bulldog Psion]

Dearie. There are likely counter examples, but the last two letters only tend to appear when it's being used to condescend at people.

Yes, you probably found one, here. :smallbiggrin:

[ThinkMinty]

A topic about condescension?
How droll.

So far, this wins the thread.


You're going to run into a lot of trouble here. Given this clause, it will only take one counterexample to derail the thread...

It could have been a bit of carelessness. It could've been deliberate to give people opinions to vacillate between. It could've been both, or it could be a butterfly dreaming it's a man. Who knows, really.

[Donnadogsoth]

How about kthanxbye as a conversation ender?

[AMFV]

Dearie. There are likely counter examples, but the last two letters only tend to appear when it's being used to condescend at people.

Not always. It can be used as a term of endearment for somebody younger by somebody significantly older. Typically it would be like grandmother to granddaughter. Not as common a use anymore, but certainly common enough to avoid condescension


How about kthanxbye as a conversation ender?

When leaving phone messages. Definitely not condescending in that context. When you aren't able to stay on the phone for a while or are about to lose signal. Generally in a telephonic context that can be just fine and not condescending at all.

[Knaight]

Not always. It can be used as a term of endearment for somebody younger by somebody significantly older. Typically it would be like grandmother to granddaughter. Not as common a use anymore, but certainly common enough to avoid condescension.

Sounds like old people condescending to young ones to me.

[AvatarVecna]

Any post including the phrase "herp de derp", "derpety derp derp" or something similar is almost universally going to be used in a way that's insulting to somebody involved...although when the insult is being directed at oneself (for being a moron, like making a post about leaving a link, and then forgetting to actually leave a link) lessens the condescension.

[factotum]

Seems to me words themselves are not condescending, only the context in which they're used (and the tone, of course, but you can't really judge that from a forum post). The counterexamples above show that.

[Wardog]

Just sayin'


In my experience, pretty much exclusively implies "I knew that would be insulting or condesending, but I said it anyway".

[SirKazum]

One thing that never fails to piss me off when people use it in an argument is "you don't understand what I'm saying". It implies the only possible reason someone would have to disagree with you is because they're dumb and fail to understand the brilliance of your point; that anyone who comprehends what you're saying must necessarily agree with it, since it's so perfect. How about this, I get your point just fine and I still think it's hogwash, possibly because there's some other rationale I'm following that you fail to understand? Or maybe just don't assume one specific reason for why the other party continues to disagree (usually the one that makes you look good), where there could be many? Since you're not omniscient and can't read people's minds? :smallfurious:

[BWR]

One thing that never fails to piss me off when people use it in an argument is "you don't understand what I'm saying". It implies the only possible reason someone would have to disagree with you is because they're dumb and fail to understand the brilliance of your point; that anyone who comprehends what you're saying must necessarily agree with it, since it's so perfect. How about this, I get your point just fine and I still think it's hogwash, possibly because there's some other rationale I'm following that you fail to understand? Or maybe just don't assume one specific reason for why the other party continues to disagree (usually the one that makes you look good), where there could be many? Since you're not omniscient and can't read people's minds? :smallfurious:

IME, most times that phrase or something similar comes up is because someone is misunderstanding something.

Anyway, the single most condescending phrase is "with all due respect".

[A.A.King]

One thing that never fails to piss me off when people use it in an argument is "you don't understand what I'm saying". It implies the only possible reason someone would have to disagree with you is because they're dumb and fail to understand the brilliance of your point; that anyone who comprehends what you're saying must necessarily agree with it, since it's so perfect. How about this, I get your point just fine and I still think it's hogwash, possibly because there's some other rationale I'm following that you fail to understand? Or maybe just don't assume one specific reason for why the other party continues to disagree (usually the one that makes you look good), where there could be many? Since you're not omniscient and can't read people's minds? :smallfurious:

For similar reasons to this I find the word educating to be extremely condescending and aggravating in a lot of contexts. People use educating when they not only believe their opinion/worldview/ideae is something you cannot disagree with, it is something you can only disagree with if you haven't been 'educated' enough. "You clearly lack the upbringing and understandig to realise that my view is the be all end all on this subject so let me educate you on the million ways you are objectively wrong"

Even if agree with the idea that people want 'to educate others with' I still feel like jumping to the other side of the debate because anyone who is that condescending just shouldn't be allowed to be right (even when they are).

[MonkeyBusiness]

One thing that never fails to piss me off when people use it in an argument is "you don't understand what I'm saying".

Boy, howdy: this is the worst. While it can be used neutrally (or even kindly) to clarify a genuine misunderstanding, when used in a condescending way "you don't understand" is toxic.

As a childless (or as I prefer to say, child-free) woman of a certain age, I am told "you don't understand" on a regular basis by parents who assume I am incapable of perceiving that their offspring's inappropriate behavior is in fact evidence that their child is a unique snowflake of unprecedented brilliance. Never mind that I studied child psychology, and have worked as an educator my entire life; never mind that I might actually spend more time with their child than they do. No. I "don't understand" anything about that particular kid, because I am not a parent. Not because I am not the parent of that child (which might make sense as an argument), but because I personally have not pushed another human being out of my lady parts.

Right. And I'm the one who "doesn't understand".

May I add: I am so thankful I am finally too old to be told that I "will change my mind when I get older" and decide to have kids anyway. And that I should start "before it is too late." Guess what? I am older, and I have not changed my mind, I did not magically pass some imaginary "sell-by" date when I turned forty. So you might want to shut up with your condescending crapola - before it is too late.

Also this:
Hamilton Tickets are better than a baby.

https://aboveaverage.com/watch/above-average-presents/hamilton-tickets-are-better-than-a-baby/


Let's add "you'll change your mind" and "You'll understand when you __" to the list of condescending phrases. And "before it is too late" when it is applied to a person's age.


- Monkey

.

[goto124]

When leaving phone messages. Definitely not condescending in that context. When you aren't able to stay on the phone for a while or are about to lose signal. Generally in a telephonic context that can be just fine and not condescending at all.

Wouldn't one say "gtg" instead?

I've always thought ktksbye is exclusively and intentionally condescending.

[AMFV]

Wouldn't one say "gtg" instead?

I've always thought ktksbye is exclusively and intentionally condescending.

Nope. It can be condescending but isn't necessarily so.

[SirKazum]

IME, most times that phrase or something similar comes up is because someone is misunderstanding something.

Oh sure, as with pretty much everything else in this thread, there are contexts in which it's not condescending. In this case, mostly when it's clear that both parties are talking about entirely different subjects and one of them doesn't realize it, or any other such simple mistake. One telltale sign that it's not condescending then is that the party who's having the misunderstanding won't mind being corrected (well, usually). But no, I'm specifically talking about people who say that just because someone else is disagreeing with them. That drives me up the wall.


Let's add "you'll change your mind" and "You'll understand when you __" to the list of condescending phrases.

YES PLEASE. Can't count how many times I've heard this about such-and-such topic (prohibited topics on the board) when I was a teen. "Oh, you'll 'get it' and change your mind when you outgrow this phase of yours" or whatever crap. Here I am, a couple decades later, getting on my second marriage, I've changed a lot of stuff about myself of course, but not that.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Anyone who ends a post online with "sips tea".

Or any number of similar puffed-up, overused, smug phrases that imply that they have the final word on any given subject.

[Starwulf]

Here's one that's somewhat in line(but on the other side) of what Monkey was talking about. Anytime the word "Breeder" is used in reference to people have kids. I honestly can't recall even once when this word was used without a massive amount of condescension being put out. Just because I have kids does not make me inferior to those who don't, nor does it make me stupid just because I believe this is still a good enough world for children to be born into.

[Lethologica]

I almost always see that word used as an entirely facetious slur for straight people. No condescension involved. But my sample may be biased.

[goto124]

http://www.teampwnicorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Egging-The-Question.png

[Marlowe]

I keep getting called "Prissy".

This word isn't used in everyday speech where I'm from at all, so from the context in which I see it used I've come to understand that it means "correct, but annoying."

Seriously, I've never seen this word used by anyone who wasn't losing the argument horribly.

[rooster707]

Anyone who ends a post online with "sips tea".

Or any number of similar puffed-up, overused, smug phrases that imply that they have the final word on any given subject.

I once knew a guy who ended every post he made with that, no matter what it was about. It never really seemed condescending, at least to me... it just seemed like he really liked tea.

*sips tea*

[MonkeyBusiness]

Here's one that's somewhat in line(but on the other side) of what Monkey was talking about. Anytime the word "Breeder" is used in reference to people have kids. I honestly can't recall even once when this word was used without a massive amount of condescension being put out. Just because I have kids does not make me inferior to those who don't, nor does it make me stupid just because I believe this is still a good enough world for children to be born into.

Since children are part of what makes the world a wonderful place, this word seems to me to be silly as well as condescending. In fact, it might be one of the few words we've discussed so far that are condescending regardless of context.


I keep getting called "Prissy"... Seriously, I've never seen this word used by anyone who wasn't losing the argument horribly.

Yes, this word seems deigned to be a tool for the good ol' argumentum ad hominem. So: fallacious as well as condescending.

- Monkey

.

[Knaight]

Since children are part of what makes the world a wonderful place, this word seems to me to be silly as well as condescending. In fact, it might be one of the few words we've discussed so far that are condescending regardless of context.

The context I've seen it in has been entirely retaliatory, not condescending. That's not to say that it doesn't exist in a condescending context, but that it doesn't only exist in a condescending context. It's pretty consistently rude unless you're using it as part of a professional title (dog breeder, horse breeder, whatever), but it's often justifiable rudeness being thrown back at someone who started the argument with some hostile nonsense towards people who don't personally want to have kids.

[AMFV]

Boy, howdy: this is the worst. While it can be used neutrally (or even kindly) to clarify a genuine misunderstanding, when used in a condescending way "you don't understand" is toxic.

As a childless (or as I prefer to say, child-free) woman of a certain age, I am told "you don't understand" on a regular basis by parents who assume I am incapable of perceiving that their offspring's inappropriate behavior is in fact evidence that their child is a unique snowflake of unprecedented brilliance. Never mind that I studied child psychology, and have worked as an educator my entire life; never mind that I might actually spend more time with their child than they do. No. I "don't understand" anything about that particular kid, because I am not a parent. Not because I am not the parent of that child (which might make sense as an argument), but because I personally have not pushed another human being out of my lady parts.

To be fair, you can't understand. You haven't had that experience. You can empathize with it, you can determine that it isn't for you. But you can't understand something you don't have direct experience in any real sense. If you've studied child psych, you know that there are emotional and psychological connections with the parents, that are not generally replicated with others.



Right. And I'm the one who "doesn't understand".

May I add: I am so thankful I am finally too old to be told that I "will change my mind when I get older" and decide to have kids anyway. And that I should start "before it is too late." Guess what? I am older, and I have not changed my mind, I did not magically pass some imaginary "sell-by" date when I turned forty. So you might want to shut up with your condescending crapola - before it is too late.

Let's add "you'll change your mind" and "You'll understand when you __" to the list of condescending phrases. And "before it is too late" when it is applied to a person's age.


- Monkey

.

Well, maybe that's based on their experience and is not necessarily condescending in all cases. Perhaps they've known people who changed their mind, or who had decided similarly to you and regretted it later. That's certainly not unheard of.

The danger, of course, is that by assuming that they're being condescending you, yourself, aren't giving due respect to their experiences, and are therefore also being condescending.

[Lethologica]

To be fair, you can't understand. You haven't had that experience. You can empathize with it, you can determine that it isn't for you. But you can't understand something you don't have direct experience in any real sense. If you've studied child psych, you know that there are emotional and psychological connections with the parents, that are not generally replicated with others.
Empathy is usually defined as understanding what someone else is experiencing. I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.

[AMFV]

Empathy is usually defined as understanding what someone else is experiencing. I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.

I probably should have said sympathy, rather than empathy. I was using empathy in a slightly unusual way. Essentially I was meaning it to be "hypothetically putting yourself into their shoes" rather than "intimately understanding their experiences". Which is a way I've seen it used. The one is a hypothetical, since you don't have the same degree of understanding.

[Lethologica]

I probably should have said sympathy, rather than empathy. I was using empathy in a slightly unusual way. Essentially I was meaning it to be "hypothetically putting yourself into their shoes" rather than "intimately understanding their experiences". Which is a way I've seen it used. The one is a hypothetical, since you don't have the same degree of understanding.
Which you initially phrased as "You can't understand." You even used MonkeyBusiness' own understanding as evidence of her lack of understanding. Perhaps it's this No True Scotsman Understanding attitude that comes across as frustrating and/or condescending?

[MonkeyBusiness]

Which you initially phrased as "You can't understand." You even used MonkeyBusiness' own understanding as evidence of her lack of understanding. Perhaps it's this No True Scotsman Understanding attitude that comes across as frustrating and/or condescending?

Thank you.

[goto124]

Empathy is usually defined as understanding what someone else is experiencing. I'm not sure what distinction you're making here.

As far as I know, empathy is when you hear Bob fell down a staircase, and you know how it hurts because you've fallen down a staircase yourself before.

Sympathy would then be hearing Bob fell down a staircase, and despite not having fell down a staircase before, being able to know how it hurts. Perhaps because you've had similar, if less severe, situations before (such as falling out of your bed). Or because you've heard descriptions of falling down a staircase. Or just because you can imagine how rolling down hard floors would hurt.

Empathy is due to sharing a common experience. Sympathy is in spite of sharing a common experience.

[Maryring]

Welp. This thread got full of condescending words rather quickly.

[Frozen_Feet]

Anyway, the single most condescending phrase is "with all due respect".

That's mostly because it's only used when no actual respect is due. :smallamused:

[Wardog]

Another one I've thought of, similar to the "you don't understand" / "you need educating" ones already mentioned:

"Google X" (or "It's called X. Google it", or any varient of the same).

As used to "win" arguments by people who think the only reason you would disagree is because you haven't heard of concept X (rather than e.g. knowing about it and thinking it doesn't apply in this situation, or knowing about it but thinking it isn't a valid concept).



Another one would be: throwing in the names of logical fallacies as though that can win an argument (something I've been guilty of myself in the past, but am trying to avoid now), as it often just comes across as "I know some (pseudo)latin I saw someone else use, so :smalltongue:". Similarly, dismissing someone's argument as "a fallacy", when you really mean "I disagree with you".

[goto124]

Even when the phrases are used correctly, such phrases don't actually need to be mentioned. Just state your point and explain.

How about "Trust me"? So far, I've heard it only in the context of an appeal to authority, where the authority is the speaker themselves. 'Trust me, I've been driving for so many years, women are horrible drivers' (I have heard this one IRL again and again, the speaker really believes he's right).

If I trust that I can trust you, I wouldn't need to be told that. If I don't trust you, that phrase is not going to help. How about simply presenting your reasoning to show why I should trust you?

Are most condescending phrases of a similar nature, in that they come off as 'ordering' the reciever to 'respect' the speaker?

[SirKazum]

Welp. This thread got full of condescending words rather quickly.

Actually, dearie, it's full of practical examples. I guess you don't understand what "demonstration" (Google it) is, or you wouldn't get so prissy. Besides, it's such an argumentum ad hominem to dismiss posts that sound condescending... just sayin'.

*sips tea*

[AMFV]

Even when the phrases are used correctly, such phrases don't actually need to be mentioned. Just state your point and explain.

How about "Trust me"? So far, I've heard it only in the context of an appeal to authority, where the authority is the speaker themselves. 'Trust me, I've been driving for so many years, women are horrible drivers' (I have heard this one IRL again and again, the speaker really believes he's right).

If I trust that I can trust you, I wouldn't need to be told that. If I don't trust you, that phrase is not going to help. How about simply presenting your reasoning to show why I should trust you?

Are most condescending phrases of a similar nature, in that they come off as 'ordering' the reciever to 'respect' the speaker?

"Trust me" is almost never condescending in my experience. It's generally used when the speaker has more confidence in the statement. If I said "Women are better drivers", I wouldn't be necessarily saying that it was my own personal experience and my own observation that identified that, it could be something I'd heard, something somebody else had said to me, something I had seen but didn't have complete confidence in it.

When you say "trust me" it's essentially the same sort of thing as saying "I'd bet my reputation on it." Which is a much stronger claim, it indicates a great deal of confidence in that statement, since they're putting their reputation on the line, whereas otherwise it might just be conversation. To be fair it sounds like your friend is not correctly using that particular phrase.


Which you initially phrased as "You can't understand." You even used MonkeyBusiness' own understanding as evidence of her lack of understanding. Perhaps it's this No True Scotsman Understanding attitude that comes across as frustrating and/or condescending?

I used her understanding, which is in a vacuum and is separate from the understanding that comes from actual observation and experience. Her understanding is all second-hand, which makes it less valuable. There's a reason that people try to use primary sources, a secondary source is not going to be as reliable. This is certainly true of emotional experiences. I'm not saying that her viewpoint is wrong. I'm saying that for her to assume that her second-hand knowledge is inherently better than somebody's first-hand knowledge, is very condescending. (Not that other people aren't potentially also being condescending, only that to assume that is pretty condescending in and of itself.)

[A.A.King]

"Trust me" is almost never condescending in my experience. It's generally used when the speaker has more confidence in the statement. If I said "Women are better drivers", I wouldn't be necessarily saying that it was my own personal experience and my own observation that identified that, it could be something I'd heard, something somebody else had said to me, something I had seen but didn't have complete confidence in it.

When you say "trust me" it's essentially the same sort of thing as saying "I'd bet my reputation on it." Which is a much stronger claim, it indicates a great deal of confidence in that statement, since they're putting their reputation on the line, whereas otherwise it might just be conversation. To be fair it sounds like your friend is not correctly using that particular phrase.

Trust me, I feel, is mainly used as a last resort 'argument' when everything else has failed. You have no convincing arguments left and neither party is willing to concede the debate so all you are left with is: "trust me". I'm not sure if I would call it condescending, but I think I get where Goto124 is coming from. When you use in the context of an argument "trust me" usually means "I believe/'know' that I am right, that I am the person who knows best and even though I have no means to prove how clearly superior my position is; I have neither facts nor evidence that I can show you but I still expect you to assume I am right". If you are right you shouldn't have to asked to be trusted, you should be able to prove why you are right. There are of course examples were you can be right without being able to prove it (you may be talking about and have specialized in Hard Science while the other person needs a calculator for his basic tables) but this won't usually be the case.

Generally I only accept "Trust Me" as an out in a discussion when I know the other person has the right specialist knowledge (though in that case I will usually concede the point before I the phrase "Trust Me" has to be uttered) or when the other person is referencing studies/books I haven't read (in which case I'll pause the discussion until I've had a change to look at his data)

I think rather than comparing it with "I'd stake my reputation on it" I would compare it with "You Don't Understand": You are claiming to have some higher knowledge you cannot share with the person you are trying to convince but which you know would convince them if they did have it but without backing up your claims.

[SirKazum]

Trust me, I feel, is mainly used as a last resort 'argument' when everything else has failed. You have no convincing arguments left and neither party is willing to concede the debate so all you are left with is: "trust me". I'm not sure if I would call it condescending, but I think I get where Goto124 is coming from. When you use in the context of an argument "trust me" usually means "I believe/'know' that I am right, that I am the person who knows best and even though I have no means to prove how clearly superior my position is; I have neither facts nor evidence that I can show you but I still expect you to assume I am right". If you are right you shouldn't have to asked to be trusted, you should be able to prove why you are right. There are of course examples were you can be right without being able to prove it (you may be talking about and have specialized in Hard Science while the other person needs a calculator for his basic tables) but this won't usually be the case.

Well yeah... like everything else in this thread, context is key, but IMHO the most benign way to use "trust me" is as a verbal tic that really should be ignored for the speaker's sake (kinda like the more benign use of "well actually" too, in fact). Because, if you say "trust me" and really mean it, I at least see that right there as reason to trust you less. As pointed out, if I can trust you, you don't have to say it... and if I can't, it's meaningless. Nobody who can't be trusted admits to that - and from personal experience, the more someone says "you can trust me" (or something to that effect - "you know me, I never lie, isn't that right?"), the more likely that person is to be lying and/or full of crap.

[Lethologica]

I used her understanding, which is in a vacuum and is separate from the understanding that comes from actual observation and experience.
I doubt MonkeyBusiness rigidly separates her intellectual understanding of children from her experiential understanding of children in a vacuum somewhere, so, no.


Her understanding is all second-hand
No, it isn't. MonkeyBusiness was talking about understanding the children, not the parents. Her experience with a child is not identical to a parent's experience with that child, but it is not mediated by a third party. Unless you're saying the parents are literally experiencing the child's life from the child's point of view (the only "first-hand" that logically follows from calling Monkey Business' understanding "second-hand"), this argument dies.


for her to assume that her second-hand knowledge is inherently better than somebody's first-hand knowledge
On top of the aforementioned problem with the handedness argument, MonkeyBusiness didn't assume anything about her knowledge being inherently better than anyone else's knowledge.

I don't get what your goal is in this discussion. No one denied that parents are in a special position to access experiences and understandings about their children. No one claimed that parents are inherently worse at understanding their children than educators or child psychologists or anyone else. But contesting these points seems to be core to your position, which is also oddly focused on constructing an equivalence in condescension between MonkeyBusiness and the parental comments that bother her, for some reason. What is that reason?

[AMFV]

Trust me, I feel, is mainly used as a last resort 'argument' when everything else has failed. You have no convincing arguments left and neither party is willing to concede the debate so all you are left with is: "trust me". I'm not sure if I would call it condescending, but I think I get where Goto124 is coming from. When you use in the context of an argument "trust me" usually means "I believe/'know' that I am right, that I am the person who knows best and even though I have no means to prove how clearly superior my position is; I have neither facts nor evidence that I can show you but I still expect you to assume I am right". If you are right you shouldn't have to asked to be trusted, you should be able to prove why you are right. There are of course examples were you can be right without being able to prove it (you may be talking about and have specialized in Hard Science while the other person needs a calculator for his basic tables) but this won't usually be the case.


"Trust me", is rarely used in arguments, at least in my experience. It's usually used when giving advice to give it extra weight. "Trust me, women are horrible drivers" is kind of a bizarre statement. "You should probably invest in such and such, trust me" would be a more common usage. Essentially it's used to imply some knowledge that might not be inherently obvious, like intuition born of experience. Not everything can be overtly demonstrated, and when somebody says "trust me" they are typically meaning that their experiences have indicated something to be the case, and they may not be able to overtly demonstrate or prove it.



Generally I only accept "Trust Me" as an out in a discussion when I know the other person has the right specialist knowledge (though in that case I will usually concede the point before I the phrase "Trust Me" has to be uttered) or when the other person is referencing studies/books I haven't read (in which case I'll pause the discussion until I've had a change to look at his data)


That variation on this theme only applies when hard data can be examined. Which isn't in all (or even most) cases. And also sometimes hard data lies... in the real world variations can cause things to appear one way when they're really another. Which would be an example of where "Trust me" could be used. Say somebody is a senior technician, and you're Joe Schmoe from college, you look at some survey data and it looks to be presenting as one thing, and they tell you it's something different. There might not necessarily be anything behind that but years of experience. But I'll bet you a shiny nickel that the opinion of somebody that's been doing it for years is worth a crapton more than somebody who can only argue based on data, rather than data and experience.

Of course, that's not the case in academia, but academia is such a fringe world and is so disparate from real world stuff as to be not really useful for most of these conversations. In academia reputations and experience are valued less, and so "Trust Me" doesn't have the same merit, purpose, or valuation.



I think rather than comparing it with "I'd stake my reputation on it" I would compare it with "You Don't Understand": You are claiming to have some higher knowledge you cannot share with the person you are trying to convince but which you know would convince them if they did have it but without backing up your claims.

I think that may be cultural. I've not ever seen "trust me" used as a last resort in an argument, I can't think of one instance. Generally I've seen it used as I described. It's used to imply that somebody has a greater degree of certainty in a particular opinion. It's not really always a matter of understanding, but that they're staking something on it (in this case their reputation, since if they use "trust me" and aren't able to be trusted, then you aren't going to be trusted again).

To be fair, I tend to be around more conservative cultural elements, where reputation is a big deal. So it may be differently used in cultural areas I'm less familiar with.


I doubt MonkeyBusiness rigidly separates her intellectual understanding of children from her experiential understanding of children in a vacuum somewhere, so, no.


But she still lacks the same first hand knowledge that a parent has. Period. She doesn't have the same experience as they've had. Now odds are that she won't regret her life decisions. But she won't ever understand their experience in the same way that they do. Anymore than somebody who hasn't been to war can really understand what that's like. Or somebody who's never been in a physical fight can understand that. It's not really something that you can understand if you haven't done it.



No, it isn't. MonkeyBusiness was talking about understanding the children, not the parents. Her experience with a child is not identical to a parent's experience with that child, but it is not mediated by a third party. Unless you're saying the parents are literally experiencing the child's life from the child's point of view (the only "first-hand" that logically follows from calling Monkey Business' understanding "second-hand"), this argument dies.


You're confusing things here. MonkeyBusiness' argument ONLY applies to the viewpoint of the parents. Since she's being told that she's going to change her mind about having children, or later regret not doing it. The children's point of view isn't relevant to that, or significant to that in any real way. It's only the experiences of the parents that are significant, since those are the experiences they are telling her she's going to regret missing out on.



On top of the aforementioned problem with the handedness argument, MonkeyBusiness didn't assume anything about her knowledge being inherently better than anyone else's knowledge.

I don't get what your goal is in this discussion. No one denied that parents are in a special position to access experiences and understandings about their children. No one claimed that parents are inherently worse at understanding their children than educators or child psychologists or anyone else. But contesting these points seems to be core to your position, which is also oddly focused on constructing an equivalence in condescension between MonkeyBusiness and the parental comments that bother her, for some reason. What is that reason?

My point was that assuming that the reason they were stating that she didn't understand (when she doesn't share the same understanding) may not be out of condescension, but rather out of a difference of experience. It certainly could be condescending, but that need not be the case.


Well yeah... like everything else in this thread, context is key, but IMHO the most benign way to use "trust me" is as a verbal tic that really should be ignored for the speaker's sake (kinda like the more benign use of "well actually" too, in fact). Because, if you say "trust me" and really mean it, I at least see that right there as reason to trust you less. As pointed out, if I can trust you, you don't have to say it... and if I can't, it's meaningless. Nobody who can't be trusted admits to that - and from personal experience, the more someone says "you can trust me" (or something to that effect - "you know me, I never lie, isn't that right?"), the more likely that person is to be lying and/or full of crap.

Again, I disagree, it's not really that a person is more likely to be lying, as that they are not necessarily going to be able to explain why the situation is the way it is. Either because it's just intuition born of experience, or because there is information that they can't or won't share.

[A.A.King]

"Trust me", is rarely used in arguments, at least in my experience. It's usually used when giving advice to give it extra weight. "Trust me, women are horrible drivers" is kind of a bizarre statement. "You should probably invest in such and such, trust me" would be a more common usage. Essentially it's used to imply some knowledge that might not be inherently obvious, like intuition born of experience. Not everything can be overtly demonstrated, and when somebody says "trust me" they are typically meaning that their experiences have indicated something to be the case, and they may not be able to overtly demonstrate or prove it.

We clearly have very different experiences. Personally I've heard it much more often as a way to convince somebody of an opinion/view point than as way to convince someone their well meaning advice is good advice. Their is ofcourse nothing wrong with the phrase being used in the context of simple advice, but that is not the context goto124 and I know it from best (and I'm fairly certain this thread gave up on the idea of "regardless of contex" from the second post onwards). When used in an argument/discussion people use trust me when they believe they can fool you into surrendering your point.



That variation on this theme only applies when hard data can be examined. Which isn't in all (or even most) cases. And also sometimes hard data lies... in the real world variations can cause things to appear one way when they're really another. Which would be an example of where "Trust me" could be used. Say somebody is a senior technician, and you're Joe Schmoe from college, you look at some survey data and it looks to be presenting as one thing, and they tell you it's something different. There might not necessarily be anything behind that but years of experience. But I'll bet you a shiny nickel that the opinion of somebody that's been doing it for years is worth a crapton more than somebody who can only argue based on data, rather than data and experience.

Of course, that's not the case in academia, but academia is such a fringe world and is so disparate from real world stuff as to be not really useful for most of these conversations. In academia reputations and experience are valued less, and so "Trust Me" doesn't have the same merit, purpose, or valuation.

When I said 'data' I wasn't actually referencing hard date or rigid textbooks. I was talking about another fairly common moment (which is probably also strangely alien to you) namely the moment when you're having a (heated) discussion with one ore more friends and one goes: "Trust me, I know this s***. I read it somewhere". This 'somewhere' is obviously not an academic study but usually an article which may or may not reference a study. To continue with the example provided for us ("Trust me, women are horrible drivers") I can imagine a discussion in which one of my friend would go: "Trust me: women are on average worse drivers than men, I read it in a newspaper article" (the 'on average' bit being there so I don't compare a profession female race car driver with the time he drove his car in a moat, my friends are smart like that). The "Trust Me" is added in the hope that everybody just accepts the claim and agree that he is right without further discussion. My point was merely that in those situations I am willing to accept that he/she thinks he/she 'read it somewhere' but that I want to have read it too before I'm willing to consider conceding the point.



I think that may be cultural. I've not ever seen "trust me" used as a last resort in an argument, I can't think of one instance. Generally I've seen it used as I described. It's used to imply that somebody has a greater degree of certainty in a particular opinion. It's not really always a matter of understanding, but that they're staking something on it (in this case their reputation, since if they use "trust me" and aren't able to be trusted, then you aren't going to be trusted again).

To be fair, I tend to be around more conservative cultural elements, where reputation is a big deal. So it may be differently used in cultural areas I'm less familiar with.

It probably is a cultural thing, maybe because I also hang out with a lot of very certain people who have no real need for a phrase to imply that they have an even greater degree of certainty (and as such don't use it that way). However I don't think it is so much a reputation thing as it is an argumentation thing. When you hang out with a lot of argumentative people who are willing to concede very few points you'll be asked very often to just 'trust them' because they are certain that that information came from somewhere(even if it didn't).

It is ofcourse very context depended, however in the context of a discussion/argument having someone simply say "Just trust me" as their final argument against very valid counterpoints is either very condescending or just the right mix of stupid and stubborn because you're either not smart and willing enough to accept defeat or too high and mighty to actually consider the arguments presented against you (because you know you are right no matter what)

I mean, Joe Smug the Senior Technician will say: "Trust me, I've been doing this for 40 years" and thus presents a reason as to why he knows best. The argumentative plain and simple "Trust me" has as only reason that you are the one saying it and thus it has to be right.

I know my stuff, Trust Me

[SirKazum]

Again, I disagree, it's not really that a person is more likely to be lying, as that they are not necessarily going to be able to explain why the situation is the way it is. Either because it's just intuition born of experience, or because there is information that they can't or won't share.

So, in other words, they "just know they're right"... is that it? That's what it sounds like to me. And "I just know I'm right" (whether stated or implied) is the trademark phrase of those who combine ignorance and arrogance (two things that often go together (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)). All the more reason to distrust "trust me" on the ignorance side (as opposed to the dishonesty side I was mostly focused on). "All I can say about it is, I'm so darn sure that what I say is true that I'll bank my whole respectability on it" sounds like the words of someone who knows jack **** of what they're talking about. Because 1) if you can't properly explain the rationale behind your opinion, there's a chance that's the case because you just don't understand the topic well enough to properly discuss it; 2) this may come across as a vague platitude (and it is), but in general, the more you know, the less certain you are about stuff; and 3) once again, if you really feel such a great need to assert that I really know what I'm talking about, you guys, then it sounds like your point is rather shaky (or maybe your credentials on the topic at hand are), otherwise it would stand on its own.

[AMFV]

So, in other words, they "just know they're right"... is that it? That's what it sounds like to me. And "I just know I'm right" (whether stated or implied) is the trademark phrase of those who combine ignorance and arrogance (two things that often go together (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)). All the more reason to distrust "trust me" on the ignorance side (as opposed to the dishonesty side I was mostly focused on). "All I can say about it is, I'm so darn sure that what I say is true that I'll bank my whole respectability on it" sounds like the words of someone who knows jack **** of what they're talking about. Because 1) if you can't properly explain the rationale behind your opinion, there's a chance that's the case because you just don't understand the topic well enough to properly discuss it; 2) this may come across as a vague platitude (and it is), but in general, the more you know, the less certain you are about stuff; and 3) once again, if you really feel such a great need to assert that I really know what I'm talking about, you guys, then it sounds like your point is rather shaky (or maybe your credentials on the topic at hand are), otherwise it would stand on its own.

Or they have experience you don't have, and are talking to you about that. That happens particularly in fields where experience really can make a difference. Generally it's used in this case: "I know that your school and the data tells you this, but my experience is telling me otherwise" (Of course in this scenario the experienced dude has been through schooling and knows how to read the data as well). 9 times out of 10 the experienced person will be right. And it's not always something that can be "discussed" sometimes it's just something you learn, sometimes "it's just the way it is" is all there is, there's nothing that can be gotten to otherwise.

As far as point 1 goes, that's not true. Experience can teach you things that you may not be able to explain. There's a reason why people (like employers) value practical experiences so much more heavily than training. Sometimes the reason for a thing is so arcane and convoluted that explaining it would be pointless (or people don't know why things are the way they are). But if you are dealing in application (rather than in theory), that experience matters A LOT, which is why somebody might use that phrase.

Point 2, is a vague platitude, and has been the opposite of my experience, particularly in technical fields. It might be true in terms of theology, or philosophy or softer fields. But in technical fields the more experience you have, the more rapidly you can recognize patterns, the more things you'll be intimately familiar with.

Point 3, again generally this is used when experience is telling you something other than what is immediately obvious (or even the opposite of it).



When I said 'data' I wasn't actually referencing hard date or rigid textbooks. I was talking about another fairly common moment (which is probably also strangely alien to you) namely the moment when you're having a (heated) discussion with one ore more friends and one goes: "Trust me, I know this s***. I read it somewhere". This 'somewhere' is obviously not an academic study but usually an article which may or may not reference a study. To continue with the example provided for us ("Trust me, women are horrible drivers") I can imagine a discussion in which one of my friend would go: "Trust me: women are on average worse drivers than men, I read it in a newspaper article" (the 'on average' bit being there so I don't compare a profession female race car driver with the time he drove his car in a moat, my friends are smart like that). The "Trust Me" is added in the hope that everybody just accepts the claim and agree that he is right without further discussion. My point was merely that in those situations I am willing to accept that he/she thinks he/she 'read it somewhere' but that I want to have read it too before I'm willing to consider conceding the point.


I know my stuff, Trust Me

I think the reason why I haven't seen it used that way, is because the people I tend to associate with and am around treat it as though it's a matter of reputation. So if you're bull****ting and you say "I've read this somewhere trust me!" Nobody will think you're worth anything and your reputation will be ruined you'll be kind of treated like a worthless know-it-all, somebody who makes claims that aren't right, and nobody will listen to you. In a cultural setting where reputations are absolutely critical, you don't throw yours around to win arguments with your friends, unless you really are certain. Which is probably why I've not seen that as often.

[Lethologica]

But she still lacks the same first hand knowledge that a parent has. Period.
No, not 'period'. First-hand knowledge of what? The parents in question made statements about their children, and about childless women regretting their decisions. Those are not first-hand experiences of parenthood, they are second-hand understandings of childhood and (for lack of a better term) spinsterhood. Nothing about this discussion derives from the first-hand experiences of parents qua parents, except that the parents use their first-hand experience of parenthood in contrast to their second-hand understanding of spinsterhood as a basis for making condescending statements about the latter.


You're confusing things here. MonkeyBusiness' argument ONLY applies to the viewpoint of the parents. Since she's being told that she's going to change her mind about having children, or later regret not doing it. The children's point of view isn't relevant to that, or significant to that in any real way. It's only the experiences of the parents that are significant, since those are the experiences they are telling her she's going to regret missing out on.
Wait. Who is confused? Your claim is literally "Since she's being told her opinions about children are wrong and she'll think differently in the future as a childless woman, clearly the relevant experiences here are neither the children's, nor the childless woman's, but the parents'!" The only people whose experiences aren't directly implicated in this conversation are the only people whose experiences you're taking as relevant. That is ridiculous.


My point was that assuming that the reason they were stating that she didn't understand (when she doesn't share the same understanding) may not be out of condescension, but rather out of a difference of experience. It certainly could be condescending, but that need not be the case.
What does the one have to do with the other? Condescending statements may derive from a difference of experience, or not; so what?

[AMFV]

No, not 'period'. First-hand knowledge of what? The parents in question made statements about their children, and about childless women regretting their decisions. Those are not first-hand experiences of parenthood, they are second-hand understandings of childhood and (for lack of a better term) spinsterhood. Nothing about this discussion derives from the first-hand experiences of parents qua parents, except that the parents use their first-hand experience of parenthood in contrast to their second-hand understanding of spinsterhood as a basis for making condescending statements about the latter.

You are mistaken, all people who have children now at one point did not. So they have experienced that and can more appropriately contrast. They had the experience of not having children. So they have first-hand knowledge. Now because we're all different their experience is likely wildly distinct from what another person's might be, but they do have first hand knowledge. Whereas somebody who has never had children only has first-hand knowledge of their own area.



Wait. Who is confused? Your claim is literally "Since she's being told her opinions about children are wrong and she'll think differently in the future as a childless woman, clearly the relevant experiences here are neither the children's, nor the childless woman's, but the parents'!" The only people whose experiences aren't directly implicated in this conversation are the only people whose experiences you're taking as relevant. That is ridiculous.

Her opinions about HAVING children. She's being told by people who have first hand experience that her opinions about HAVING children are wrong. And to be fair, she might be right, I don't know, there are certainly people who've had bad experiences with having children, or have regretted it. But unless she is one of those people she doesn't have first-hand experience.



What does the one have to do with the other? Condescending statements may derive from a difference of experience, or not; so what?

Because it is condescending to assume that somebody is speaking out of condescension (which implies a degree of inaccuracy) rather than to assume that they are speaking from experience (which does not imply the same. If somebody is acting in a condescending way then they are misrepresenting your experience or knowledge as less than it is. If that statement is accurate it may not be condescending (although it certainly can be).

[SirKazum]

Or they have experience you don't have, and are talking to you about that. That happens particularly in fields where experience really can make a difference. Generally it's used in this case: "I know that your school and the data tells you this, but my experience is telling me otherwise" (Of course in this scenario the experienced dude has been through schooling and knows how to read the data as well). 9 times out of 10 the experienced person will be right. And it's not always something that can be "discussed" sometimes it's just something you learn, sometimes "it's just the way it is" is all there is, there's nothing that can be gotten to otherwise.

As far as point 1 goes, that's not true. Experience can teach you things that you may not be able to explain. There's a reason why people (like employers) value practical experiences so much more heavily than training. Sometimes the reason for a thing is so arcane and convoluted that explaining it would be pointless (or people don't know why things are the way they are). But if you are dealing in application (rather than in theory), that experience matters A LOT, which is why somebody might use that phrase.

Point 2, is a vague platitude, and has been the opposite of my experience, particularly in technical fields. It might be true in terms of theology, or philosophy or softer fields. But in technical fields the more experience you have, the more rapidly you can recognize patterns, the more things you'll be intimately familiar with.

Point 3, again generally this is used when experience is telling you something other than what is immediately obvious (or even the opposite of it).

Sounds like we're talking about different things then. In highly technical or practical fields, yeah, someone who does have lots of experience is usually going to know what works and what doesn't, and "trust me, it goes this way" sounds like something they might say that does merit listening to. (But even then, I take issue with "experience teaches you things you can't explain" - from what I've seen, people who know what works best from practical experience can usually tell you exactly why it works best... although the reasons are often hard to understand for inexperienced listeners, so there's that.)

However, in pretty much everything other that what any given person does for a living (including other practical trades), from what I've observed, the Dunning-Kruger effect I linked to before hits people hard, and that's what I'm talking about. And it gets hard to distinguish (most of all for the speaker) who's saying "yeah, trust me, I know how this goes" out of well-earned practical experience, or out of ignorance-borne arrogance. The two tend to feel exactly alike for the person doing the arguing, as far as I can tell. So, while I do get your point, I'll still keep not taking people who seem too certain about things, who "just know" something, or who say "trust me" that seriously, at least until I get to know them well enough to tell they really do know what they're talking about.

[Lethologica]

You are mistaken, all people who have children now at one point did not.
Yes, of course, everyone who has ever lived has the experience of being an adult woman who doesn't want children because they didn't have children once. You know, I think we've found the condescending assumption underlying the whole condescending house of cards.


Her opinions about HAVING children.
No, I said what I meant and I spoke correctly. Ctrl-f "their offspring's inappropriate behavior" for details. There is a conversation about the parents' children, and a conversation about not wanting kids, and in neither case is the parents' experience the only or most relevant first-hand experience.


Because it is condescending to assume that somebody is speaking out of condescension (which implies a degree of inaccuracy) rather than to assume that they are speaking from experience (which does not imply the same. If somebody is acting in a condescending way then they are misrepresenting your experience or knowledge as less than it is. If that statement is accurate it may not be condescending (although it certainly can be).
Of course, since the inaccuracy exists (people who don't want children do not necessarily change their mind or regret their decision as they get older), this whole chain of logic fails at the first hurdle.

[A.A.King]

You are mistaken, all people who have children now at one point did not. So they have experienced that and can more appropriately contrast. They had the experience of not having children. So they have first-hand knowledge. Now because we're all different their experience is likely wildly distinct from what another person's might be, but they do have first hand knowledge. Whereas somebody who has never had children only has first-hand knowledge of their own area.

Their first hand knowledge of "not having children" is too limited to be of any value for this discussion. The most obvious reason is that they (more likely than not) experienced "not having a child" through the eyes of someone who wanted a child. Basically, their live went from: "Not having a child but wanting a child (or atleast liking the idea of having a child)" to "deciding to have a child" to "having a child and seeing it as the prove that what they always thought was right"

They lack the first hand knowledge to make accurate judgement on "Not having a child (and not wanting a child)" and more specifically "A completely childless life". It's like saying you have first hand knowledge of "not having both leg" because you broke your leg during a skiing accident and thus you had a time in which you couldn't use one of your legs.

Another important little side note is the fact that 'parental love' is basically nothing more than an advanced form of Stockholm syndrome and that in particular 'a mothers bond with her child' is based on entirely on 9 months and the sunken cost fallacy. The decision to have a child is (generally) permanent: Once you have a child and it doesn't work out all you can do is count down until college starts so you have a few years of genuine happiness before your own little personal dream killer moves back in your basement. The inability to go back on a decision affects how you experience the aftermath as well as how you look back at the happy times now gone by.

But the point is this: A parent doesn't have the right perspective on a childless life, most parents have no first hand knowledge of not wanting a child (because long before 'having a child' they 'wanted a child') and most importantly: no parent has first hand knowledge of "a completely childless life" which is what they are commenting on when they say "you'll regret it".

When you emigrate to another country you can't say others they'll regret it if they don't also move abroad because you lack the first hand knowledge of 'never having moved' as well as lacking the ability to think like someone who is perfectly content staying in one city for the rest of their life: what makes you happy doesn't make everybody happy and saying that people'll regret not making similar decisions to you is condescending because you're assuming that you know best and more importantly that you understand someone better then they understand themselves.

[Lethologica]

The rest aside, this:


Another important little side note is the fact that 'parental love' is basically nothing more than an advanced form of Stockholm syndrome and that in particular 'a mothers bond with her child' is based on entirely on 9 months and the sunken cost fallacy. The decision to have a child is (generally) permanent: Once you have a child and it doesn't work out all you can do is count down until college starts so you have a few years of genuine happiness before your own little personal dream killer moves back in your basement. The inability to go back on a decision affects how you experience the aftermath as well as how you look back at the happy times now gone by.
is a grossly unfair comparison. That's not wisdom talking, just cynicism. The psychological and biological dynamics of capture-bonding are very different from those of parental love. If nothing else, you can start by throwing out that comment about a mother's bond--as if adopted children are never loved! As if mothers have never had any choice but keeping the child! Clearly there's more going on than "I have to justify my pregnancy," and I can't believe that needed saying.

[The Succubus]

Not to be confused with condensating words like "moisture" and "droplet".

[A.A.King]

is a grossly unfair comparison. That's not wisdom talking, just cynicism. The psychological and biological dynamics of capture-bonding are very different from those of parental love. If nothing else, you can start by throwing out that comment about a mother's bond--as if adopted children are never loved! As if mothers have never had any choice but keeping the child! Clearly there's more going on than "I have to justify my pregnancy," and I can't believe that needed saying.

To be fair, the parts you were quoting were mainly jokes (making the point that 'a parent can't help but love its child' extreme for comic effect) though I disagree with the notion that cynicism isn't wisdom. As to the mother's bond comment: it was about the 'special' mother's bond people like to refer to (the one the biological mother still feels with the child she put up for adoption decades later) which comes on top of the normal parental bond (meaning that there were no exceptions in my statement for adopted children). I thought the extreme language of the more jokey parts were al fairly obvious (I also referred to a child as "your own little personal dream killer" after all) and I can't believe that needed saying.

[Lethologica]

Okay, yeah, my humor meter was turned way down for this thread. Gotta recalibrate. Sorry for the mixup.

[A.A.King]

Okay, yeah, my humor meter was turned way down for this thread. Gotta recalibrate. Sorry for the mixup.

That's okay, the internet's lack of tone can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish between someone who is being very serious and (very) wrong and someone who is being a just little less serious but also very funny. I mean just a week ago or so somebody in a different thread felt the need to ask me if I was really painting Nixon as the protagonist of the Watergate story...

I am just sorry you didn't get to enjoy what I personally thought was quite a decent line first time round.

[Winter_Wolf]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

[Knaight]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

It's generally used more to say that people are essentially lying, but through a method sophisticated enough that the actual lies are strongly implied more than overtly stated.

[Winter_Wolf]

It's generally used more to say that people are essentially lying, but through a method sophisticated enough that the actual lies are strongly implied more than overtly stated.

Probably true enough, but I still find it cowardly and disgusting. Smacks of trying to circumvent the board rules on saying nasty things about other users. Then again I'm not a fan of sophistry.

I also have pet hates about certain words which are just innocuous. Nothing even rational, just that they set off my crazy button.

[AMFV]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

Accusing somebody of lying isn't calling them stupid or being condescending. I would say that to say "calling somebody disingenuous is the equivalent of calling them stupid" is a little bit disingenuous in and of itself :P, since that isn't the explicit meaning of the word. It's claiming that somebody is being deliberately deceptive (although not always lying), more like misrepresenting facts.

[Marlowe]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

"Disingenuous" means nothing like "Stupid":smallconfused:.

[goto124]

To continue with the example provided for us ("Trust me, women are horrible drivers") I can imagine a discussion in which one of my friend would go: "Trust me: women are on average worse drivers than men, I read it in a newspaper article" (the 'on average' bit being there so I don't compare a profession female race car driver with the time he drove his car in a moat, my friends are smart like that). The "Trust Me" is added in the hope that everybody just accepts the claim and agree that he is right without further discussion. My point was merely that in those situations I am willing to accept that he/she thinks he/she 'read it somewhere' but that I want to have read it too before I'm willing to consider conceding the point.

To elaborate on my own example, the speaker would claim his own experience to be evidence. "Trust me, over all my years of driving, women are bad drivers. There are a few good woman drivers and a few bad man drivers, but as a whole women are the one who drive badly".

I suspect there's selective picking of evidence (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png) involved...

[Jak]

"Your little (insert noun here)"

Your little game
Your little group
Your little friends
Your little job
Your little church
Your little literally anything you say after these two words. *>_<

This one really gets to me.


Except of course when it's being used to specify something which is both actually in your possession and comparatively smaller than another thing in your possession of the same type. Ex: "Your little toe has a blister on it," or "hey, can you hand me that knife? No, your knife. No, your little one."

[Frozen_Feet]

Re: Disingenuous:

I guess any negative criticism will come off as condescending to a person who is convinced they are right, or feel intellectually intimidated, or just plain don't like the person giving the critique.

I will point out accusing a critic of being condescending is often condescending itself, and is always disingenuous (as it doesn't address the criticism, instead focusing on the critic's state of mind).

[Lethologica]

I will point out accusing a critic of being condescending is often condescending itself, and is always disingenuous (as it doesn't address the criticism, instead focusing on the critic's state of mind).
Reacting to someone's tone is not a dishonest action unless the reaction is meant to cover the content as well as the tone. Accusing someone of talking down to you is not the same as talking down to them. People who engage in credibility flame wars often simultaneously condescend while accusing the other person of being condescending, but that's not inherent to the accusation.

[Winter_Wolf]

"Disingenuous" means nothing like "Stupid":smallconfused:.

I'll own that the word doesn't mean what I thought it meant. Don't think it's better to be called dishonest, though. At least with stupid one can claim ignorance, as opposed to the latter being generally malignant. Still think it's an overblown word for people who like to talk down at others.

[blunk]

It's claiming that somebody is being deliberately deceptive (although not always lying), more like misrepresenting facts.A: "Murders doubled under your first year of mayorship!"
B: "They went from one to two! In a city of a million people!"
A: "Yes, so what are you going to do about this murder epidemic happening on your watch?"

[Marlowe]

Many things people say on the on the internet are WRONG. Sometimes they're wrong because the writer plainly has no clue what he's talking about and sometimes because the writer is being deliberately deceptive to push some opinion of his own.

Nobody should steer clear of calling out this behaviour in perfectly correct language just because somebody else finds a certain perfectly correct word "condescending."

Just to be further prissy, the word "Disingenuous" is by no means "overblown". Quite the opposite. It is usually a severe understatement. However, the use of "cowardly" and "disgusting" to describe people using a word you don't like and don't understand certainly is.

[AMFV]

Many things people say on the on the internet are WRONG. Sometimes they're wrong because the writer plainly has no clue what he's talking about and sometimes because the writer is being deliberately deceptive to push some opinion of his own.


It is worth noting that disingenuous doesn't apply when people are wrong, only when they are being deliberately deceptive. It is useful sometimes to point out when somebody is deliberately misrepresenting data.

[Winter_Wolf]

Many things people say on the on the internet are WRONG. Sometimes they're wrong because the writer plainly has no clue what he's talking about and sometimes because the writer is being deliberately deceptive to push some opinion of his own.

Nobody should steer clear of calling out this behaviour in perfectly correct language just because somebody else finds a certain perfectly correct word "condescending."

Just to be further prissy, the word "Disingenuous" is by no means "overblown". Quite the opposite. It is usually a severe understatement. However, the use of "cowardly" and "disgusting" to describe people using a word you don't like and don't understand certainly is.

Hey alright, y'all win. Shall we agree to disagree and move on with our lives? I didn't think it was going to be such a hot button topic.

[OldTrees1]

What about "It"? Not that condescension towards objects(Pick it up) and actions(Do it) is an unreasonable air of superiority. We are superior to our action and to mere objects. So the condescension of "It" is only noticeable when it is offensive by calling a non It "It"(It has chores to do).

[AMFV]

Hey alright, y'all win. Shall we agree to disagree and move on with our lives? I didn't think it was going to be such a hot button topic.

The problem is that condescension in-and-of-itself is very much in the eye of the beholder. Certainly one can speak with words intend to evoke that particular feeling, but there are a lot of cases where people assume that others are being condescending when they aren't. That's what we're seeing here.

[ThinkMinty]

What about "It"? Not that condescension towards objects(Pick it up) and actions(Do it) is an unreasonable air of superiority. We are superior to our action and to mere objects. So the condescension of "It" is only noticeable when it is offensive by calling a non It "It"(It has chores to do).

"It rubs its lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again." is likewise condescending.


Not to be confused with condensating words like "moisture" and "droplet".

You win half an internet for that.


A: "Murders doubled under your first year of mayorship!"
B: "They went from one to two! In a city of a million people!"
A: "Yes, so what are you going to do about this murder epidemic happening on your watch?"

You win a whole internet.


"Your little (insert noun here)"

Your little game
Your little group
Your little friends
Your little job
Your little church
Your little literally anything you say after these two words. *>_<

This one really gets to me.


Except of course when it's being used to specify something which is both actually in your possession and comparatively smaller than another thing in your possession of the same type. Ex: "Your little toe has a blister on it," or "hey, can you hand me that knife? No, your knife. No, your little one."

Yes, this.

"Your little gambling problem" is similarly condescending.


I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

Anti-intellectualism is always condescending.

[goto124]

"It rubs its lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again." is likewise condescending.

I decided to check the origins of the line (https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-serial-killer-Buffalo-Bill-mean-when-he-says-It-rubs-the-lotion-on-its-skin-or-else-it-gets-the-hose-again-in-Silence-of-the-Lambs). I see how it's condescending.

[Winter_Wolf]

I decided to check the origins of the line (https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-serial-killer-Buffalo-Bill-mean-when-he-says-It-rubs-the-lotion-on-its-skin-or-else-it-gets-the-hose-again-in-Silence-of-the-Lambs). I see how it's condescending.

Were you previously unfamiliar with the line? That was a pretty big movie back in its day. It's like how I knew lines from Pulp Fiction for a good year or two before I'd ever seen it.

Edit: :embarrassed: had some stuff that really should have been in the confessions thread.

[goto124]

"Don't argue". Has anyone else had this told to them in a non-condescending manner? Often followed by "face the FACTS" when the speaker is deriding the listener about e.g. "how are you so bad at driving through this [really narrow and cramped] multi-storey carpark, I drive through this with no problem, I don't care how your muscle memory works you should just follow the signs, I don't care how you're trying not to scratch my car considering how easily angry I get, you're so scared you should be braver, SCREAM SHOUT SCREAM". It's ironic how he's says "don't be scared" when he actually screams it out in an angry loud voice. All the time.

"Don't argue" literally tells someone to shut up, stop the conversation entirely, and communicates "I'm right, you're wrong, you have no right to even open your mouth, let alone challenge me". Best reason I can come up, is if the 'someone' was saying very clearly discriminatory things... though, I would guess other phrases such as "shut up" would be applied.

What about "of course"? I've learnt many things that seem self-evident may not be even true. Last I heard the phrase, it was "of course men and women are completely different! How can they be the same?" when hearing on the radio about the female head coach of an all-male basketball team. When the radio said "I think it doesn't matter if [the coach is] a man or an woman", the "of-course"er just scoffed.

I may or may not have heard someone IRL say "of course, while it's okay for girls to cuddle, it's disgusting for a man to hug another man so closely".

The only times I would ever say "of course", would be stuff like "of course, 1+1 = 2" or "of course, she was upset and furious her well-loved sister was butchered to death", but even then I feel no need to say "of course". I just state the thing.

Also, "WOMAN!" is more or less an indication of misogynism. Especially when repeated over and over with the verbal equivalent of bolding, as if the fact the accused human is female is the most important thing above all else. I'd witnessed a man who would say refer to a jaywalking man as an "idiot", but a jaywalking woman as "woman". Sometimes I can't believe this is a real person, as opposed to a caricature of misogynism.

[Bulldog Psion]

goto, I've got to say that you run into a LOT weirder people than I have ever personally encountered. Glad I don't live around them.

[Disc Lorde]

"It's obvious" and the variants "It's just common sense" or "It's just common courtesy". Implying that "it" (whatever "it" is) is the only possible way a reasonable person (like the speaker) would think/act and if you think/act otherwise for even a second you are incredibly stupid and/or inconsiderate and you don't even deserve an explanation of why what you thought/did is wrong.

[goto124]

I can't count the number of times Use your common sense! was told when I did use my common sense, but the speaker wanted me to use his common sense. For example, in a car, he pointed out of a car window and said "Look!". So I looked out of the window, not knowing what to look at, and I got slapped immediately.

"What happened?!"
"I told you to look at the car mirror! You purposely irritated me! You purposely refuse to follow instructions, you purposely look everywhere except the car mirror, you purposely act stupid, you purposely refuse to use your common sense, [rant continues with 'you purposely' repeated ad infinitum]"

At one point, he even made a racist remark, and then went on a similar rant because I flinched at his remark, insisting he's not racist and everything I do and think is wrong.

Doesn't help that "It's obvious" and "It's just common sense" are used genuinely, meaning the speakers actually believe 'it' is 'obvious' or 'just common sense', and cannot imagine otherwise. I have even been told "you're autistic!" when I tried to explain how something is not necessarily 'common sense'. Especially when the something is along the lines of "place the bag there. No, not that there! The other there! Women are so stupid!"

[Knaight]

What about "of course"? I've learnt many things that seem self-evident may not be even true. Last I heard the phrase, it was "of course men and women are completely different! How can they be the same?" when hearing on the radio about the female head coach of an all-male basketball team. When the radio said "I think it doesn't matter if [the coach is] a man or an woman", the "of-course"er just scoffed.

The majority of the time I see this phrase, it's in the context of acknowledging the weakness of a position. It shows up in the context of "[A], [B], and [C] indicate [D], but of course there is the matter of [E], which would seem to contradict [D], but doesn't because of [F]".

There's also a side use by certain textbook authors, along with "Obviously", "it is evident that", and other such things. Usually, the words are used to gloss over a great deal of math. There's a physical chemistry textbook I've seen that is particularly bad about this; it showed up more than once for triple integrals for the Schrodinger wave function (sometimes with added operators) in spherical coordinates.

[Lethologica]

I can't count the number of times Use your common sense! was told when I did use my common sense, but the speaker wanted me to use his common sense. For example, in a car, he pointed out of a car window and said "Look!". So I looked out of the window, not knowing what to look at, and I got slapped immediately.

"What happened?!"
"I told you to look at the car mirror! You purposely irritated me! You purposely refuse to follow instructions, you purposely look everywhere except the car mirror, you purposely act stupid, you purposely refuse to use your common sense, [rant continues with 'you purposely' repeated ad infinitum]"

At one point, he even made a racist remark, and then went on a similar rant because I flinched at his remark, insisting he's not racist and everything I do and think is wrong.

Doesn't help that "It's obvious" and "It's just common sense" are used genuinely, meaning the speakers actually believe 'it' is 'obvious' or 'just common sense', and cannot imagine otherwise. I have even been told "you're autistic!" when I tried to explain how something is not necessarily 'common sense'. Especially when the something is along the lines of "place the bag there. No, not that there! The other there! Women are so stupid!"
Ew. That sounds like a very unhealthy amount of control/anger/violence/gaslighting(?).

I do tend to use "It's obvious that <xyz>" in forum comments, but I hope I'm actually using it where the <xyz> in question is, in fact, obvious--and also that I'm not using it in a way that directs attention to someone who is not getting the supposedly obvious thing.

[Wardog]

"It's just common courtesy".

What's wrong with that?

"You shouldn't use condesending language to put people down. It's just common courtesy".

[ThinkMinty]

Also, "WOMAN!" is more or less an indication of misogynism. Especially when repeated over and over with the verbal equivalent of bolding, as if the fact the accused human is female is the most important thing above all else. I'd witnessed a man who would say refer to a jaywalking man as an "idiot", but a jaywalking woman as "woman". Sometimes I can't believe this is a real person, as opposed to a caricature of misogynism.

When I get mad, people become Lady or Sir as appropriate. Which is weird, because I never do that otherwise.

[AMFV]

"Don't argue". Has anyone else had this told to them in a non-condescending manner? Often followed by "face the FACTS" when the speaker is deriding the listener about e.g. "how are you so bad at driving through this [really narrow and cramped] multi-storey carpark, I drive through this with no problem, I don't care how your muscle memory works you should just follow the signs, I don't care how you're trying not to scratch my car considering how easily angry I get, you're so scared you should be braver, SCREAM SHOUT SCREAM". It's ironic how he's says "don't be scared" when he actually screams it out in an angry loud voice. All the time.

"Don't argue" literally tells someone to shut up, stop the conversation entirely, and communicates "I'm right, you're wrong, you have no right to even open your mouth, let alone challenge me". Best reason I can come up, is if the 'someone' was saying very clearly discriminatory things... though, I would guess other phrases such as "shut up" would be applied.


I've never heard "don't argue" used in a condescending manner (although as with most experiences may vary). Every single time I've heard "don't argue", the context is always the following: Something needs done immediately, there isn't time to have a discussion on it, and that may risk more issues. So it's something like this: "Go get the calf out of that field, don't argue" if they see you're about to raise objections. "Quick shut off the power to wherever, don't argue".

I have a suspicion that many of these instances you're referring to are dealing with one specific person, who would probably make any words condescending. Not that the words themselves are condescending.



What about "of course"? I've learnt many things that seem self-evident may not be even true. Last I heard the phrase, it was "of course men and women are completely different! How can they be the same?" when hearing on the radio about the female head coach of an all-male basketball team. When the radio said "I think it doesn't matter if [the coach is] a man or an woman", the "of-course"er just scoffed.


Generally when I hear "Of Course", it's being used to skip a lot of boring lead up and discussion. Or to acknowledge another point of view. "Of course, there are those who don't agree with me, but they are wrong because of X". Generally, that's when I've seen "Of course" used in most conversation. Although it's not super common, mostly just in intellectual discussion.



Also, "WOMAN!" is more or less an indication of misogynism. Especially when repeated over and over with the verbal equivalent of bolding, as if the fact the accused human is female is the most important thing above all else. I'd witnessed a man who would say refer to a jaywalking man as an "idiot", but a jaywalking woman as "woman". Sometimes I can't believe this is a real person, as opposed to a caricature of misogynism.

I'm not sure, I would say that referring to a jaywalking woman as "Woman" is better than referring to her as an "Idiot". Although to be fair, I usually use woman in a context that is not at all misogynistic, and typically is an amorous one. If I'm feeling misogynistic, I might use "female", although that's not super common. For example I've used that term in relation to differing fitness standards in the military. (Which should probably go into confessions, but that's alright)


When I get mad, people become Lady or Sir as appropriate. Which is weird, because I never do that otherwise.

It's interesting (at least linguistically and culturally), because I go the opposite way. I use "Ma'am", and "Sir" when I perceive that somebody is worth respecting, but if they've forfeited that then I don't use those honorifics.

[goto124]

Not that the words themselves are condescending.

Which is why we're discussing them in this thread! I keep wondering what non-condescending contexts for such phrases would be, and now I know. I'm so glad I get to talk to sane people such as you.

Every once a while I come across a non-condescending context for a phrase, and think to myself "a better phrase could be used". For example, "don't argue" could be replaced by "no time to explain (http://cdn4.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/No_Time_To_Explain_Poster.jpg)" or "I'll explain later". "Man up" could also be replaced by "grow up".

Speaking of which, is "man up" condescending?

[AMFV]

Which is why we're discussing them in this thread! I keep wondering what non-condescending contexts for such phrases would be, and now I know. I'm so glad I get to talk to sane people such as you.


The chief issue is that any set of words can be condescending (or not) depending on the context and the speaker.



Every once a while I come across a non-condescending context for a phrase, and think to myself "a better phrase could be used". For example, "don't argue" could be replaced by "no time to explain (http://cdn4.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/No_Time_To_Explain_Poster.jpg)" or "I'll explain later". "Man up" could also be replaced by "grow up".


Don't argue is used to cut off somebody when they start to argue and there isn't time, which is what I was trying to show in my examples. It's a long stronger than "No time time explain", because it's a command "DON'T Argue" is a direct instruction, "No time to explain" is in and of itself an explanation. There's a reason often why we use the words we do. And there are cases where "Don't argue" is much better than "No time to explain", because they aren't the same, while they're very similar in meaning (in this usage case), there's a lot of difference in the subtext. Again "Don't Argue" is a command, it's an imperative, and those have differing impact than a statement or an explanation.



Speaking of which, is "man up" condescending?

Man up isn't so much condescending as it is chastising. It's not saying "I am better than you", it's saying "You need to behave better". While the phrasing and such could potentially be different (and getting into that can of worms would trample all over forum rules), it isn't so much condescending as it is chastising.

[Donnadogsoth]

Which is why we're discussing them in this thread! I keep wondering what non-condescending contexts for such phrases would be, and now I know. I'm so glad I get to talk to sane people such as you.

Every once a while I come across a non-condescending context for a phrase, and think to myself "a better phrase could be used". For example, "don't argue" could be replaced by "no time to explain (http://cdn4.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/No_Time_To_Explain_Poster.jpg)" or "I'll explain later". "Man up" could also be replaced by "grow up".

Speaking of which, is "man up" condescending?

Condescending and sexist.

[AMFV]

Condescending and sexist.

I don't think it is, necessarily either. That sentiment is typically used either for a young boy or a young man who is acting immaturely. In this case by an older and more experienced man who is correcting their behavior. It's the job of more experienced and developed people to teach the young. I don't see that there's anything inherently sexist about me teaching a boy to behave more like a man.

[Donnadogsoth]

How about this old soap opera favourite:

"What's that supposed to mean?!"

Complete with wagging head and shimmying hips. In other words, "what's that mean?" or even just "what?" or "pardon?" isn't good enough for them. No, they have to eloongate the question into this disingenuous snipe at your ability to convey information clearly. It's a tawdry put-down.

[AMFV]

How about this old soap opera favourite:

"What's that supposed to mean?!"

Complete with wagging head and shimmying hips. In other words, "what's that mean?" or even just "what?" or "pardon?" isn't good enough for them. No, they have to eloongate the question into this disingenuous snipe at your ability to convey information clearly. It's a tawdry put-down.

I wouldn't say that's particularly condescending. It's more a reaction to somebody else saying something they perceive as condescending. Certainly there are non-condescending uses for that phrase.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't think it is, necessarily either. That sentiment is typically used either for a young boy or a young man who is acting immaturely. In this case by an older and more experienced man who is correcting their behavior. It's the job of more experienced and developed people to teach the young. I don't see that there's anything inherently sexist about me teaching a boy to behave more like a man.

It's sexist to teach a boy that there is such a thing as being a man, as opposed to teaching him there is only such a thing as to be a person. I didn't say it's wrong to teach a boy to be a man, only that strictly speaking yes it is sexist to teach that the sexes do meaningfully differ.


I wouldn't say that's particularly condescending. It's more a reaction to somebody else saying something they perceive as condescending. Certainly there are non-condescending uses for that phrase.

It doesn't seem as condescending because it's so cheap sounding. But it's designed to put the speaker on a higher plane than the target, implying the target is confused, possibly hopelessly or typically so. It's dirty.

[goto124]

I personally have only heard the "What's that supposed to mean?!" phrase in response to really mind-bending or plain nonsensical stuff. Especially the kind one sees on the internet.

[Lethologica]

I generally hear "What's that supposed to mean?" when someone feels they have been obliquely insulted or called out and they don't want to let it pass. As such, it's probably more often a response to condescension, at least in my experience.


It's sexist to teach a boy that there is such a thing as being a man, as opposed to teaching him there is only such a thing as to be a person. I didn't say it's wrong to teach a boy to be a man, only that strictly speaking yes it is sexist to teach that the sexes do meaningfully differ.
If we're working with this level of technicality, AMFV may simply be urging the boy to perform masculine stereotypes where appropriate.

[Draconi Redfir]

I'm not exactly sure how to fit this properly into the thread, but one thing that always irks me is when a conversation generally goes like this.

Me: Hey what's your opinion on this? X or Y?

Them: I don't know, just go with whatever you like/make up your mind.


Like dude, i was asking your opinion because i value your imput and i'm not entirely sure what i want myself. the least you could do is give an awnser of some kind.

Given all that, i'm going to add the strings "Do what you want" and/or "make up your mind" to the list if they have not been added already.

[goto124]

Them: I don't know, just go with whatever you like/make up your mind.

Like dude, i was asking your opinion because I value your input and i'm not entirely sure what i want myself. the least you could do is give an answer of some kind.

Lots of people I've been with do not follow the bolded part. They ask questions when they actually have their own answer already, and I have even been scolded, belittled, and condescended for (gasp!) giving my own answer when asked.

How about "but that's just my opinion"?

[Winter_Wolf]

I'm not exactly sure how to fit this properly into the thread, but one thing that always irks me is when a conversation generally goes like this.

Me: Hey what's your opinion on this? X or Y?

Them: I don't know, just go with whatever you like/make up your mind.


Like dude, i was asking your opinion because i value your imput and i'm not entirely sure what i want myself. the least you could do is give an awnser of some kind.

Given all that, i'm going to add the strings "Do what you want" and/or "make up your mind" to the list if they have not been added already.

I feel you. My wife and I have this back and forth entirely too often. Damn, I thought we were supposed to be equal partners here, throw me a bone, here. A new rule was instituted from it: if you have no opinion when asked for one, you're not allowed to complain when the other makes an executive decision even if you don't agree with it.

I'm guilty of escalating things, though. If my first response is some variation of "I don't care (I don't know/whatever you like/up to you)," my following response will generally be something I know won't be agreed to. Because after twelve years, I'm probably not suddenly going to say something surprising about "what should we eat tonight?"

[factotum]

Like dude, i was asking your opinion because i value your imput and i'm not entirely sure what i want myself. the least you could do is give an awnser of some kind.


But they might be in the same position as you and not be sure what to answer? That's usually why I'll answer something along the lines of "You choose" or "whichever you like", because I don't know which decision to make myself.

[Starwulf]

Lots of people I've been with do not follow the bolded part. They ask questions when they actually have their own answer already, and I have even been scolded, belittled, and condescended for (gasp!) giving my own answer when asked.

How about "but that's just my opinion"?

Ehh, I don't see "But that's just my opinion" as condescending at all. I myself use it frequently on topics where an opinion is the only possibility(no actual facts to define the topic, just personal experience and stuff), especially when my opinion is not a popular one. It's basically me recognizing the fact that I'm in the minority but wanted to express my view anyways.

[goto124]

I personally use phrases such as "in my opinion", "I feel that", and "personally" at the front of posts.

So far, "but that's just my opinion" seems to often get added at the bottom of a post that had disparaged someone else's opinion, making it sound fairly sarcastic.

[Aedilred]

I often see (or use) a closing "but that's just my opinion" as an attempt to soften the preceding argument, reminding everyone involved after what can be fairly heated debate that not everyone is going to agree and there isn't necessarily an objectively right or wrong answer - and that if people disagree with you, you might think they're wrong but you accept they have a right to hold that view.

As so often, context means a lot.

[MannHugo]

There are several people who use the phrase "actually" to correct themselves if they discover that they have said something wrong or posited some form of incorrect information. For instance if someone says - "Actually, you're right, my bad" - I would be hard pressed to find a hint of condescension in a phrase like that. I will admit that there are some words that ooze condescension but this all deoends on the context in which they are being used. There is no absolute in this matter. At least in my opinion.

[Draconi Redfir]

But they might be in the same position as you and not be sure what to answer? That's usually why I'll answer something along the lines of "You choose" or "whichever you like", because I don't know which decision to make myself.

In that case they could at least say so. i'd much rather hear the words "I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other" over a "Do what you want" or a "make up your mind." At least in that way it's actually responding to my question in some way other then just completely de-railing it.

[An Enemy Spy]

I hate being called 'Buddy' by someone older than me. I work a security gate and I get this a lot, but I let it roll off since I know they're just being friendly. One man insisted on calling me 'Young Man' once, which made me want punch his teeth out. Nobody calls another adult Young Man for any reason but to make them look like a child.

[Tvtyrant]

Like pretty much any aspect of language, words can't have independent traits. A word can't be evil, mean, or condescending. All of that comes from people. Any word can be mean or condescending if the person means them to be, and the opposite is true.

[goto124]

I hate being called 'Buddy' by someone older than me. I work a security gate and I get this a lot, but I let it roll off since I know they're just being friendly.

I wouldn't want anyone but my actual buddies to call me 'Buddy'.

[Winter_Wolf]

I hate being called 'Buddy' by someone older than me. I work a security gate and I get this a lot, but I let it roll off since I know they're just being friendly. One man insisted on calling me 'Young Man' once, which made me want punch his teeth out. Nobody calls another adult Young Man for any reason but to make them look like a child.

I wanted to make a Village People joke, but I can't remember most of the lyrics to "YMCA". Now I'm old enough that anyone calling me "young man" would get a good laugh. "Buddy" is really all over the place, though. Friendly to fighting words, depending how you sling it.

[AMFV]

I hate being called 'Buddy' by someone older than me. I work a security gate and I get this a lot, but I let it roll off since I know they're just being friendly. One man insisted on calling me 'Young Man' once, which made me want punch his teeth out. Nobody calls another adult Young Man for any reason but to make them look like a child.

I disagree completely. Usually when I've been called "young man" it's been almost a gesture of respect, it's almost always when somebody is expressing gratitude towards something I've done. And compared to the people who are calling me that I'm almost always "young". So it's more a statement of fact. I've seen it a lot more in the sense of "isn't he a nice young man" than in any form of condescension, although again it could potentially be used so.

[Wardog]

"Buddy" is really all over the place, though. Friendly to fighting words, depending how you sling it.

Ditto for "mate" and "pal".

[Jormengand]

Fine day for a discussion, isn't it? Are you really likely to disagree, given that you're in this discussion thread? Of course not. But if you use your common sense, then you'll probably be able to make some good points, but don't argue with each other: treat each other with all due respect. Well, obviously, I'm not the authority on that: you can do what you want. I have a mate who's good at arguing, actually. It has to argue a lot when people don't respect its pronouns.

I have another pal who has a lot of arguments. She's a dog breeder, but she tries to produce more functional species, rather than the breeds that have problems: there's something wrong with bulldogs' skulls (I can't remember quite what, google it if you're interested or trust me if you're not). She's got this thing of educating people about the effects that traditional dog breeding has. I think that the way that purebreeds (which are purposely bred for a particular characteristic) are presented as being something to be desired is kinda disingenuous, but that's just my opinion. You should take a look at the evidence and make up your mind for yourself.

Ah, sorry buddy, but you're gonna have to cut this short, aren't you? Your little sister's gonna need to be picked up from school around now, isn't she? Wait, you don't have a little sister any more? What's that supposed to mean? Oh, neat, glad he's discovered himself. I thought you meant... yeah. Herp de derp. He didn't seem like the type, though. He seemed a bit too prissy, ya know? Sorry, I'm just sayin' my immediate reaction. But he was such a little dearie. I bet he's still cute!

Ah, what's that? He's texted you something? Ha, that sounds like pretty droll humour! It's obvious that your little bro's got a comedic talent. No, I'm being serious, that's actually a pretty neat joke! Now, I'm sorry, I have a friend over in a minute, and the drinks are... *Sips tea* just about ready! Oh, I guess you don't understand what I'm saying, do you? Hang on, let me check my phone. There, can you hear me better now?

Sorry, I have to dash, kthanxbye!

(Okay, I kinda changed this into a phone transcript halfway through, but whatever).

[enderlord99]

"Wait: you only have a bachelor's degree, and not a master's? Okay, me try talk your level. What you major?"

"Umm... mathematics. Could you please be les-"

"Math like me? That mean you count this far (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_%28number%29) on you fingers; that cute... I like use these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number) numbers, but I no think you able use them. It right there in name!"

[OldTrees1]

It has to argue a lot when people don't respect its pronouns.

(Okay, I kinda changed this into a phone transcript halfway through, but whatever).

Wow, that was a great post. You even found a great counterexample to it.

[Asmodean_]

Every xir/zer/hir/whatever when it's used in such a way as
ACTUALLY since I'm [insert obscure identity/orientation here] you SHOULD be using [pronoun], you ABSOLUTE [whatever]OPHOBE.

Maybe I haven't memorized the many-pages-long wikipedia list yet. That's not a direct insult at you. It's me going "jesus jetskiing christ do i have to memorize this four-trillion long list of pronouns to avoid maybe accidentally offending someone" and coming to the conclusion "i probably don't have to the person will still know i'm referring to him/her/them/idk regardless and it's pretty clear i'm not trying to offend"

(For reference this hasn't happened here, it was on a tumblr somewhere)

EDIT: I forgot to specify this is when it's happening upon referring to the person for the first time, as if I was supposed to already magically know what pronoun was preferred. Balance of probability: it's probable that he or she would be correct. It's not me trying to be offensive.

[Draconi Redfir]

*Snip because long*

Well done:smalltongue:

[Jormengand]

Wow, that was a great post. You even found a great counterexample to it.

I personally hate the "Using it as a pronoun is dehumanising!" rhetoric that people come up with. My response usually takes the form "No, it's not dehumanising, what's dehumanising is that you're not using my preferred pronouns, a courtesy that you extend to every other - wait for it - human you speak to."

[OldTrees1]

I personally hate the "Using it as a pronoun is dehumanising!" rhetoric that people come up with. My response usually takes the form "No, it's not dehumanising, what's dehumanising is that you're not using my preferred pronouns, a courtesy that you extend to every other - wait for it - human you speak to."

You are correct.

Interestingly pronouns used to be assigned (like descriptive words) and now the culture is shifting to people choosing their preferred pronouns (closer to but still distant from choosing names). I think this shift describes both why that rhetoric exists, and why it became incorrect.

[Aedilred]

I personally hate the "Using it as a pronoun is dehumanising!" rhetoric that people come up with. My response usually takes the form "No, it's not dehumanising, what's dehumanising is that you're not using my preferred pronouns, a courtesy that you extend to every other - wait for it - human you speak to."

I think the straightforward answer is that calling people "it" is dehumanising unless they have specifically requested that you do so. After all "it" is a general-purpose pronoun used for everything and anything except humans. Generally when people refer to other people as "it" it carries with it a whiff of the gas chamber.

I'm also a bit wibbly on the whole issue as regards language being a two-way street. It's generally accepted at least in these parts that people can disagree about the offensiveness of a term and that people can legitimately take offence at something that was not meant offensively, and that - by extension - the speaker was in the wrong even if their intentions were good. But turning that around, is it ok for people to insist on others using terms or phrases that they themselves find offensive to utter?

But that aside I think it would probably be for the best if we avoided turning this thread into a pronouns thread if at all possible.

[Asmodean_]

@everyone who replied to my first comment:

I forgot to mention this was when it was the first time I was referring to the person. Of course when I've been corrected I'll use the right pronoun, but I wouldn't know it right off the bat.

Edited comment to clarify. Sorry for any confusion/offence caused.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

"Just"


It can be used quite reasonably and sensibly but there's not much quite as demeaning and condescending in my mind as putting "just" in front of the right (wrong?) word.

Compare:

"It's a phase he's going through" -> "It's just a phase he's going through".
"That's your opinion" -> "That's just your opinion".
"You need to pay more attention" -> "You just need to pay more attention".

[goto124]

I remember typing out a sentence with "just" in it, and then backspacing the "just". For the above reason.

I can't remember what the sentence was, though. Probably along the lines of "It's just rude".

[Knaight]

"That's your opinion" -> "That's just your opinion".

On the bright side, this one is fixable with just a few more words: "That's just, like, your opinion man" delivered in the proper voice tends not to get read as condescending.

As for the word just in general, I've noticed that when it's "You just..." it nearly inevitably reads as hostile, where "I just..." is fine.

[Lethologica]

On the bright side, this one is fixable with just a few more words: "That's just, like, your opinion man" delivered in the proper voice tends not to get read as condescending.

As for the word just in general, I've noticed that when it's "You just..." it nearly inevitably reads as hostile, where "I just..." is fine.
The latter can often be aggrieved or passive-aggressive.

[Knaight]

The latter can often be aggrieved or passive-aggressive.

True - there are absolutely uses like that. I'm just used to it in the contest of "Hold on a second, I just need to do [this thing] real fast", or "Screw it, I have time for this, I just need to do [whatever] by [whenever]".

[Comrade]

'Good for you'.

[Serpentine]

My job involves typing up court cases. Let me throw in "with respect", and especially "with all due respect".

[Jormengand]

'Good for you'.

That's sometimes used to mean "Well done" or "I'm happy for you" rather than "Cool, I don't care".

[Comrade]

I know, though I still usually hear it in the latter context.

Maybe that's just because I have a habit of talking about things people don't care about, who knows.

[nyjastul69]

I disagree completely. Usually when I've been called "young man" it's been almost a gesture of respect, it's almost always when somebody is expressing gratitude towards something I've done. And compared to the people who are calling me that I'm almost always "young". So it's more a statement of fact. I've seen it a lot more in the sense of "isn't he a nice young man" than in any form of condescension, although again it could potentially be used so.

I disagree with you. Being called 'young man', regardless of age, is generally insulting. At least I find it to be so.

[Aedilred]

My job involves typing up court cases. Let me throw in "with respect", and especially "with all due respect".

Well in court language that does basically translate as "you're lying/an idiot/all of the above".

[Serpentine]

Well in court language that does basically translate as "you're lying/an idiot/all of the above".
Eeeeeeyep.

[Marlowe]

It's not "condescending". But I do have a marked dislike for tendency of some to chime into an argument with the formula "Isn't anyone going to talk about/I can't believe nobody has mentioned/What? No mention of X" without any explanation as to how X is relevant to the discussion or even what X is.

It seems to work on the presumption that their example and their analysis is so ineffably self-explanatory and important that they shouldn't even have to explain what they're talking about.

[Aedilred]

It's not "condescending". But I do have a marked dislike for tendency of some to chime into an argument with the formula "Isn't anyone going to talk about/I can't believe nobody has mentioned/What? No mention of X" without any explanation as to how X is relevant to the discussion or even what X is.

It seems to work on the presumption that their example and their analysis is so ineffably self-explanatory and important that they shouldn't even have to explain what they're talking about.

Related to that, the tendency to close posts with "/thread". I'm sure it's usually meant jokingly but it's hard not to read it as if those who do that think their opinions/tastes/weird fetishes are the last word in the matter.

[goto124]

I've only seen it use comically. For example, in a thread about skimpy armor on female RPG characters, one could link to a certain image about womb power and then say /thread :smalltongue:

[LeighTheDwarf]

Accusing someone of being a bad parent. Not necessarily condescending, but I've never seen it do anything besides destroy a conversation and create animosity between the people conversing.

[Jerry]

"Just"


It can be used quite reasonably and sensibly but there's not much quite as demeaning and condescending in my mind as putting "just" in front of the right (wrong?) word.

Compare:

"It's a phase he's going through" -> "It's just a phase he's going through".
"That's your opinion" -> "That's just your opinion".
"You need to pay more attention" -> "You just need to pay more attention".

+1 Just! My least favorite word in the English language.

[LeighTheDwarf]

Other sure conversation destroyers..."you people" and "why do you hate/attack me?"

[Starwulf]

Accusing someone of being a bad parent. Not necessarily condescending, but I've never seen it do anything besides destroy a conversation and create animosity between the people conversing.

I particularly hate this one. I once said I had no plans on letting either of my daughter have a cell-phone until they were old enough to pay for it themselves, nor did I plan on letting them have sleepovers, and I was called a bad parent, a monster, and that they were glad they didn't know me in real life or they might be tempted to violence. I was just like "wtf, overreaction much. I have my values as a parent, you can have yours".

[danzibr]

After skimming the whole thread, I think jak got closest with "your little." Lots of good words here, but that combo... man.

A few made me think. I call my son buddy a lot, more than his actual name actually (heh), and one day I asked him which he prefers, and he said his real name.

Oh, on the topic of being a parent, I can say that my understanding of parent-child relationships radically changed after having my children. I can't speak for everyone else of course (man, I did it again), but I would say I could not fully understand the bond between a parent and child until becoming a parent.

[Donnadogsoth]

Related to that, the tendency to close posts with "/thread". I'm sure it's usually meant jokingly but it's hard not to read it as if those who do that think their opinions/tastes/weird fetishes are the last word in the matter.

I always thought "/thread" was a compliment to the poster above's superlative post.

[Winter_Wolf]

Oh, on the topic of being a parent, I can say that my understanding of parent-child relationships radically changed after having my children. I can't speak for everyone else of course (man, I did it again), but I would say I could not fully understand the bond between a parent and child until becoming a parent.

Try telling that to people who don't have kids. They're always so offended by that for some reason. I'll own up that I can't fully appreciate what it's like to be a woman, or gay. But to be truly honest, I could have happily spent the rest of my life not fully understanding the parent-child bond. Because I'm basically immature and irresponsible.

[Knaight]

Accusing someone of being a bad parent. Not necessarily condescending, but I've never seen it do anything besides destroy a conversation and create animosity between the people conversing.

I've generally seen it when the animosity is already there on at least one side, and people are firing back. With that said, I've also generally seen in in the contexts of friends dealing with outright abusive parents. Sometimes animosity is earned.

[Andre]

k


when you're too lazy for words, that letter's got you covered

[AMFV]

k


when you're too lazy for words, that letter's got you covered

Or if you're just looking to acknowledge something, but you don't have anything really to add to it.

[danzibr]

Oh yeah. While not inherently condescending, as Aedilred mentioned I find /thread to be very annoying. I have few pet peeves, but that's one of them.

[blunk]

Starting the sentence with "look," as in, "look, we're not going to do X without doing Y first."

[Bulldog Psion]

Starting the sentence with "look," as in, "look, we're not going to do X without doing Y first."

That often seems more like exasperation than condescension to me.

"Look, I know you want me to get me there in 2 hours, but this car can't travel at 200 mph."

"Look, I said three times already that I'd pay you tomorrow. Keeping after me isn't going to get my Friday paycheck into my hands on Thursday."

[goto124]

Do people in customer service say "look" a lot?

[Beelzebub1111]

"Problematic" is the first one that comes to mind for me. It's just the most passive-agressive way to say that your morally superior for not liking something.

[AMFV]

"Problematic" is the first one that comes to mind for me. It's just the most passive-agressive way to say that your morally superior for not liking something.

Problematic isn't typically used for people. It's typically used to describe something that may cause an issue later, and in my experience is generally used for objects or things. It's certainly possible to use it on people, but I don't think the word is inherently condescending.

[Beelzebub1111]

Problematic isn't typically used for people. It's typically used to describe something that may cause an issue later, and in my experience is generally used for objects or things. It's certainly possible to use it on people, but I don't think the word is inherently condescending.

It isn't that it's used on people, but that it's almost always used in a way to imply that "if you don't share MY personal moral code, then YOU are a bad person" in such a backhanded snide way that it sets my teeth on edge.

[AMFV]

It isn't that it's used on people, but that it's almost always used in a way to imply that "if you don't share MY personal moral code, then YOU are a bad person" in such a backhanded snide way that it sets my teeth on edge.

I don't think I've ever heard it used in a way that was referring to personal beliefs or matters of taste. Typically I've heard it used for technical problems.

Like "We could such and such material for this, but some aspect of said material may be problematic".

[Beelzebub1111]

Oh! I see. We are comming from two different usages here. I get the logistical sense, and that's fine. I was considering the socioligical usage. Like the implication that something that offends you is indicitive of a problem with society as a whole.

"The way that so-and-so character in this media dresses is problematic. "

[AMFV]

Oh! I see. We are comming from two different usages here. I get the logistical sense, and that's fine. I was considering the socioligical usage. Like the implication that something that offends you is indicitive of a problem with society as a whole.

"The way that so-and-so character in this media dresses is problematic. "

To be fair the way that character dresses is definitely not appropriate.

I think that it's not so much condescension as it establishing a framework for a discussion. You would probably follow up with the reasons you believed it to be problematic, and that would be useful for discussion. If it's being used outside of that context it's presumptive, but I would say inherently condescending.

[BannedInSchool]

Eh, seems to be a rash of people these days interpreting words in hugely different ways than they were intended, with neither side apparently aware that there's been any miscommunication. On one hand you don't want to invent out of whole cloth what you think someone means, but on the other you have to be aware that everyone exists in their own contexts which may be different than your own. You don't want to unquestioningly assume intent, but why someone says what they're saying shapes what they mean by it. Two parties could essentially be speaking different languages as the meaning conveyed is not the meaning intended, and that's not going to get anyone anywhere. Granted, someone could be a douchebag who can't even comprehend that other people have like their own thoughts and stuff, but perhaps one ought to aim for understanding even if agreement is impossible.

But anyway, see I'd use "actually" to mean, "Aha! Here's this fact for you to think about of which I think you're apparently unaware. As learning new things and thinking about them is fun, hooray for a fun new fact!", but I could also see someone meaning, "Oh, you poor, ignorant savage. Let me demonstrate my superiority by bestowing onto you the gift of my wisdom". I just mean, "Ooh, new fact!", so please don't crucify me as a douchebag. :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

Oh! I see. We are comming from two different usages here. I get the logistical sense, and that's fine. I was considering the socioligical usage. Like the implication that something that offends you is indicitive of a problem with society as a whole.

"The way that so-and-so character in this media dresses is problematic. "

It's routinely used for things people like though, and is vastly more likely to appear in a context along the lines of "Yeah, the depictions of X, Y, and Z are problematic, but I still like the thing". Even when not used for things liked, it's generally used as an incredibly minor criticism by people being cautious about things other people like that they still have at least some small degree of respect for.

[Lethologica]

this food is problematic
*runs away*

[goto124]

To be fair the way that character dresses is definitely not appropriate.

I think that it's not so much condescension as it establishing a framework for a discussion. You would probably follow up with the reasons you believed it to be problematic, and that would be useful for discussion. If it's being used outside of that context it's presumptive, but I would say inherently condescending.

I rarely see the word 'problematic' in the context of a discussion, and even then, discussion doesn't stop there - it's but a small part of the explanation of why something is an issue aka 'problematic'.

For example, if someone were to say "the design of this character's clothes is problematic", it'll be followed by a long explanation picking out the problematic parts of the clothes design that align with and encourage gender stereotypes.

EDIT:

What non-condescending contexts are there for "who do you think you are"?

[Jormengand]

What non-condescending contexts are there for "who do you think you are"?

Amnesia or dissociative disorders.

"You don't know who you are, but who do you think you are?"

[AMFV]

What non-condescending contexts are there for "who do you think you are"?

"Who do you think you are?" Isn't typically that condescending, typically it's used as a response to somebody doing something that you think is outrageously inappropriate. It can be a form of condescension if that person is doing something that you would consider appropriate for you. But I would use that expression when somebody does something like, for example, goes on my property and cuts plants and weeds, or when somebody comments on my financial situation without being asked. That would be the type of scenario where I would see that being used. It's not really condescension in those cases, but a response to offensive and inappropriate behavior.

[Heliomance]

What non-condescending contexts are there for "Just who do you think you are"?
FTFY.

^Also, FTFY can often be extremely condescending.

[Wardog]

I rarely see the word 'problematic' in the context of a discussion, and even then, discussion doesn't stop there - it's but a small part of the explanation of why something is an issue aka 'problematic'.

For example, if someone were to say "the design of this character's clothes is problematic", it'll be followed by a long explanation picking out the problematic parts of the clothes design that align with and encourage gender stereotypes.

I don't think it's condesending as such, but I'm not a fan of "problematic" in that context.

I often see it used in situations like that (e.g. in opinion pieces in the Guardian and the like), but it just seems to me to be often a particularly worthless word, that doesn't add any useful informtion to the discussion. In most cases, you could just omit the phrase "This is problemtic" and go straight into the explanation of why it is bad. And do I quite often see people claiming something is "problematic" without properly explaining why it is, which doesn't really tell you anything other than that theydon't like it (while implying this is a fact rather than an opinion - which I suppose could be condesending).


PS - I've just realised I've used "just" a lot in that paragraph - I hope noone takes that as condesention!

[goto124]

"Just who do you think you are?"

FTFY.

^Also, FTFY can often be extremely condescending.

Heheh. Actually, I typically hear the phrase in the form of "Who the [CENSORED] do you think you are?", and the context in which it's used gives it a meaning of "I'm the authority here, therefore I'm infinitely righter than you can ever be".

I've so far only seen FTFY used to make silly jokes that don't demean anyone. For example,



Well now I feel stupid cupid.Fixed that for ya.

[AMFV]

Heheh. Actually, I typically hear the phrase in the form of "Who the [CENSORED] do you think you are?", and the context in which it's used gives it a meaning of "I'm the authority here, therefore I'm infinitely righter than you can ever be".


Again, that's not usually the way I see even the version you're stating. Usually "Who the [Bleep] do you think you are?" isn't so much an indictment of somebody's position, as it is saying that they're coming across to you as either overreaching or condescending. At least in my experience. Again, that would be something like a neighbor trespassing on my property to cut weeds they didn't' like or somebody I didn't know well saying negative things about my relations or my friends.

Generally "Who do you think you are?" is tantamount to saying "What business is this of yours," at least in my experience. Or if it's used more forcibly it's used for "This is really none of your business." I don't think I've ever seen it used to condescend. I have seen it used to say that somebody is doing something beyond the pale, like a Company Gunny yelling at a First Sergeant in public over a leave request. So I guess there might be something of social stratification to it, but generally that form is used less if you're in a less stratified culture.

[goto124]

Again, that would be something like a neighbor trespassing on my property to cut weeds they didn't' like or somebody I didn't know well saying negative things about my relations or my friends.

Fascinating! The contexts I personally have come across myself are closer to an uncle trespassing on his niece's property to cut weeds he didn't like, only for the trespassing uncle to yell "who do you think you are, I'm your senior! I know what's right!". Or a grandmother who tells awful lies to his schoolmates, then says "who do you think you are, I know what sort of people you hang out with, I have ages of wisdom", when the grandmother has met his schoolmates only once and they play 'satanic' DnD games.

[AMFV]

Fascinating! The contexts I personally have come across myself are closer to an uncle trespassing on his niece's property to cut weeds he didn't like, only for the trespassing uncle to yell "who do you think you are, I'm your senior! I know what's right!". Or a grandmother who tells awful lies to his schoolmates, then says "who do you think you are, I know what sort of people you hang out with, I have ages of wisdom", when the grandmother has met his schoolmates only once and they play 'satanic' DnD games.

I'm being 100% honest here, but that isn't the correct usage. Like it doesn't even make sense to me. The first one possibly does, and would lead to you probably being shot in many parts of the country (not if you were somebody's uncle, but you have to remember that I've lived places where trespassing is taken very seriously).

[Serpentine]

I don't think it's condesending as such, but I'm not a fan of "problematic" in that context.

I often see it used in situations like that (e.g. in opinion pieces in the Guardian and the like), but it just seems to me to be often a particularly worthless word, that doesn't add any useful informtion to the discussion. In most cases, you could just omit the phrase "This is problemtic" and go straight into the explanation of why it is bad. And do I quite often see people claiming something is "problematic" without properly explaining why it is, which doesn't really tell you anything other than that theydon't like it (while implying this is a fact rather than an opinion - which I suppose could be condesending).


PS - I've just realised I've used "just" a lot in that paragraph - I hope noone takes that as condesention!
It's not necessarily that the thing itself is bad or the person doesn't like it, though.
Example: Anne McCaffrey's first Pern book, Dragonflight, features a plotline that (arguably) amounts to "rape her 'til she loves you". That's problematic, makes it a problematic book, and is a valid subject of criticism. Rereading it, it makes me fairly uncomfortable and I can see how it potentially both reflects and reinforces certain problematic social ideas. I still like the book and love the series. It's not the only part of that book, and there's a lot else in there that's unproblematic, and that's good, and even that's really positive and productive. "Problematic" just acknowledges that it has some issues that warrant discussion or critique, and maybe improvement for next time.

Which isn't to say that there aren't almost certainly people who do use it incredibly condescendingly. But that doesn't mean it always is, nor that the term is invalid. Heck, half the time it's being used in the context of self-reflection, aimed at things the speaker really likes themselves.

[Lethologica]

I'm being 100% honest here, but that isn't the correct usage. Like it doesn't even make sense to me. The first one possibly does, and would lead to you probably being shot in many parts of the country (not if you were somebody's uncle, but you have to remember that I've lived places where trespassing is taken very seriously).
It comes up a lot in Hollywood (because conflict) and is used both the way you describe it and the way goto describes it. Both usages are correct. For example, if the speaker is responding to an invasion of personal space, it's not condescending. If he is shutting down disagreement from a perceived inferior, it is.

[drack]

I often see (or use) a closing "but that's just my opinion" as an attempt to soften the preceding argument, reminding everyone involved after what can be fairly heated debate that not everyone is going to agree and there isn't necessarily an objectively right or wrong answer - and that if people disagree with you, you might think they're wrong but you accept they have a right to hold that view.

As so often, context means a lot.
Ay, when I try to soften statements, or to carefully phrase them so as not to give offense when tackling a sensitive topic, I'm often told that I'm being condescending. :smallsigh:


I'm gonna go with when someone starts an argument, generally with their significant other or someone they know well, generally initiating it with some long standing point of conflict, then proceeds to say that they don't want to argue, and then through repeated use of this device, attempting to verbally beat you into unwilling silent agreement with them on this issue in the future. Condescending because it suggests, like many others in this thread, that the listener's opinions are irrelevant and that only their opinions matter with regards to the issues thereby not discussed. :smalltongue:

Another I've heard is "How about you compromise and admit she's right?"

I suppose such things might be considered slightly different from condescension, but you guys have covered allot of them, so I'm reaching here. :smalltongue:

[Marlowe]

So what I'm getting from this thread so-far is that just about any word or phrase that even hints at anything other than slavish agreement or spittle-flecked contrariness is "condescending" to somebody; and that; like "hypocritical", it's just one of those things we'll have to be prepared to face accusations of every time we try to be polite and reasonable to people who aren't interested in politeness or reason.

[Lethologica]

Well, a fair number of people have posted examples with comments like "this isn't really condescending, as such, but I don't like it when people say it to me, so I'm going to complain about it." So this may have become a rather more generalized rant thread.

[drack]

Well, a fair number of people have posted examples with comments like "this isn't really condescending, as such, but I don't like it when people say it to me, so I'm going to complain about it." So this may have become a rather more generalized rant thread.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty fascinating to see what different people saw as condescending as well as what others thought wasn't. I figure largely it's a cultural thing, highly dependent on context, and something that it's hard to put your finger on in any generalized sense. There were a good few suggesting your inferior intellect should oblige you to agree, a few along the lines of just not wanting to hear what you have to say, and a few overly convoluted or popper words meant to do much the same. Overall it's taught us of how rampant misunderstandings run, particularly on the end of those conversing with dignified gentlemen who wish only to speak both in proper and precise terms, and to speak softly so as not to offend (who are then seen as both flaunting their intellect or ego thereof, and Who, because they're politely skirting around the issue, must be subtly trying to imply insult,) as another gentleman pointed out to us earlier in the thread. Additionally it's taught us that condescension is itself perceived as either the rising of ones self, or the lowering of another, whilst generally brushing off their opinions. ...or at least that's what I've seen to take away from it, but by all means, if you see more still to glean, or that perhaps I have mistaken a facet of the issue, I beg you, please do educate this savage brute, so dim of wit, for I do acknowledge the limits of mine own mental faculties.

...and you see, even a smack of exaggerated self-deprecation on the end, such as to ear the writer's humility, might instead be taken as great offense in that it's exaggerated nature might be to articulate a veiled sarcasm or perhaps that it might instead be meant as a slant to the reader. As I understand it, self-humbling, or other such overly precise detailing might have gone over better several centuries past, but these days men believe only in the with that is found in brevity, and neither the specification nor the eloquence found in a lengthier piece. Hence, any excessive wordiness or even a lengthier and more descriptive view of a point might then be taken to have hidden meaning, for why would one go so far, to employ so many words, only to express their humility with regards to their own intellect, or rather to suggest that that of the reader might be so much greater still? Why might one have spent a small paragraph in repeating yet slightly rephrasing the notions that could be presented in a single line? Surely it could not be for a slower and more lasting integration of the notion with thought, to fully flush out and elaborate upon it, or even give the reader time to digest before moving onward to the very next point. No, there is mischief afoot. Sinister dark mischief of ill intent!

[Marlowe]

Yeah, I thought it was pretty fascinating to see what different people saw as condescending as well as what others thought wasn't. I figure largely it's a cultural thing, highly dependent on context, and something that it's hard to put your finger on in any generalized sense. There were a good few suggesting your inferior intellect should oblige you to agree, a few along the lines of just not wanting to hear what you have to say, and a few overly convoluted or popper words meant to do much the same. Overall it's taught us of how rampant misunderstandings run, particularly on the end of those conversing with dignified gentlemen who wish only to speak both in proper and precise terms, and to speak softly so as not to offend (who are then seen as both flaunting their intellect or ego thereof, and Who, because they're politely skirting around the issue, must be subtly trying to imply insult,) as another gentleman pointed out to us earlier in the thread. Additionally it's taught us that condescension is itself perceived as either the rising of ones self, or the lowering of another, whilst generally brushing off their opinions. ...or at least that's what I've seen to take away from it, but by all means, if you see more still to glean, or that perhaps I have mistaken a facet of the issue, I beg you, please do educate this savage brute, so dim of wit, for I do acknowledge the limits of mine own mental faculties.

...and you see, even a smack of exaggerated self-deprecation on the end, such as to ear the writer's humility, might instead be taken as great offense in that it's exaggerated nature might be to articulate a veiled sarcasm or perhaps that it might instead be meant as a slant to the reader. As I understand it, self-humbling, or other such overly precise detailing might have gone over better several centuries past, but these days men believe only in the with that is found in brevity, and neither the specification nor the eloquence found in a lengthier piece. Hence, any excessive wordiness or even a lengthier and more descriptive view of a point might then be taken to have hidden meaning, for why would one go so far, to employ so many words, only to express their humility with regards to their own intellect, or rather to suggest that that of the reader might be so much greater still? Why might one have spent a small paragraph in repeating yet slightly rephrasing the notions that could be presented in a single line? Surely it could not be for a slower and more lasting integration of the notion with thought, to fully flush out and elaborate upon it, or even give the reader time to digest before moving onward to the very next point. No, there is mischief afoot. Sinister dark mischief of ill intent!

Ditto! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlY8nbbNo0)
stupid 10 character minimum.

[goto124]

Ay, when I try to soften statements, or to carefully phrase them so as not to give offense when tackling a sensitive topic, I'm often told that I'm being condescending. :smallsigh:

That's because there're a lot of phrases that taken at face value are meant to soften offense, but in practice are used sarcastically to invoke the very offense they're supposed to soften, often in contexts where being more overtly offensive is frowned upon. For example, "with all due respect" is typically used to mean "I feel you don't deserve respect and that you need to know that, but social conventions say I can't tell you that directly, so I'll say it passive-aggressively".

Such is English. Okay, no idea if it's unique to English.


I'm gonna go with when someone starts an argument, generally with their significant other or someone they know well, generally initiating it with some long standing point of conflict, then proceeds to say that they don't want to argue, and then through repeated use of this device, attempting to verbally beat you into unwilling silent agreement with them on this issue in the future. Condescending because it suggests, like many others in this thread, that the listener's opinions are irrelevant and that only their opinions matter with regards to the issues thereby not discussed. :smalltongue:

I experience a lot of this IRL, especially coupled with phrases such as "don't argue" and "we know who's right here". Words that tell the other party "I am so right that we shouldn't even be talking about this", immediately shutting down everything the other side might want to say, while still partaking in an emotional beat-up to get a twisted satisfication while ensuring said other party doesn't speak up again.

[Wardog]

Yeah, I thought it was pretty fascinating to see what different people saw as condescending as well as what others thought wasn't. I figure largely it's a cultural thing, highly dependent on context, and something that it's hard to put your finger on in any generalized sense.

I suppose the important points to take away are:
1) If someone is a condesending jerk, they can (and will) make pretty much anything condesending.
2) Just because you have heard a particular phrase being used to condesend before, doesn't necessarily mean someone else is using it is being condesending.
3) It's easy to confuse people's intent on the internet.

Given all that, it's probably best policy to:
a) give people the benefit of the doubt and don't assume they are being condesending (at least until they persistently demonstrate otehrwise).
b) if lots of people thnk you are being condesending, they you probably either are, or at least are expressing yourself badly, so should try to behave differently.

[drack]

That's because there're a lot of phrases that taken at face value are meant to soften offense, but in practice are used sarcastically to invoke the very offense they're supposed to soften, often in contexts where being more overtly offensive is frowned upon. For example, "with all due respect" is typically used to mean "I feel you don't deserve respect and that you need to know that, but social conventions say I can't tell you that directly, so I'll say it passive-aggressively".

Such is English. Okay, no idea if it's unique to English.
Ay, not unique to English, but it is true. Still, you're always left with the option to defy social convention and just bluntly saying stuff. I've even used "with all due respect" a time or two, properly, and without provoking offense, IRL blunt honesty's how I get away with it. :smalltongue: Still, online, or with people you've only just met, it's not always enough.


I suppose the important points to take away are:
1) If someone is a condesending jerk, they can (and will) make pretty much anything condesending.
2) Just because you have heard a particular phrase being used to condesend before, doesn't necessarily mean someone else is using it is being condesending.
3) It's easy to confuse people's intent on the internet.

Given all that, it's probably best policy to:
a) give people the benefit of the doubt and don't assume they are being condesending (at least until they persistently demonstrate otehrwise).
b) if lots of people thnk you are being condesending, they you probably either are, or at least are expressing yourself badly, so should try to behave differently.

On "B" I'm gonna have to moderately disagree. Get on a stage and say something onc,e plenty of folks can think you condescending and it don't mean much at all. I could give other counterexamples, but such absolutes are often misguided. Likewise, I'm not sure it's right to shove all the blame on the speaker. I've got aloof intellectual friends who do express themselves badly, and often get labeled as condescending, but I've also got friend with anxiety problems who see condescension as well as other things wherever they look. Most importantly, I think accusatory blanket statements that not only push blame on the reader, but also demand that they conform to your viewpoint is, not only somewhat minimally helpful, but could also be read as condescension. Now, I agree, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and being generally honest is probably a good approach to life, so believe me when I say I don't believe you meant it that way, but particularly in a thread discussing condescension, I thought I might as well mention it. That intentional? :smalltongue:

[Lethologica]

These sorts of emotional overtones often vary in a systematic way between different communities, too. The set of things that would come across as condescending here is different from the corresponding set for WebDiplomacy, is different from The Toast, is different from my family IRL, and so on. That's more descriptive than prescriptive, but it's good to notice these things.

[Wardog]

Likewise, I'm not sure it's right to shove all the blame on the speaker. I've got aloof intellectual friends who do express themselves badly, and often get labeled as condescending, but I've also got friend with anxiety problems who see condescension as well as other things wherever they look. Most importantly, I think accusatory blanket statements that not only push blame on the reader, but also demand that they conform to your viewpoint is, not only somewhat minimally helpful, but could also be read as condescension. Now, I agree, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and being generally honest is probably a good approach to life, so believe me when I say I don't believe you meant it that way, but particularly in a thread discussing condescension, I thought I might as well mention it. That intentional? :smalltongue:

I was thinking along the lines of:

If only one person thinks you are being condesending, they have probably misinterpreted you.
If lots of people think you are being condesending, you are probably doing something wrong.


I used to be a regular poster of the BBC Radio 4 forums (before they were closed). There was another regular there who would frequently take offense at things other members said, but which no-one else found offensive. He would also frequently say things that other people considered condesending, insulting, or prejudiced, but which he thought was fine and just being misinterpreted. (It didn't help that he generally refused to explain himself or rephrase his comments, on the grounds that his meaning was "obvious" and he didn't see any point in going out of his way to help people who were "too stupid to understand it").

I think this is a good example of the fault lying with the odd man out.

I didn't man to imply that the reader in general is always at fault and should conform to your view.

[drack]

Yup, I feel ya mate. A fair rule of thumb to be sure. Statistically the majority's more often right about such things.

I was mostly picking at it because, with the if/then format where when the if statement is accepted it hammers ya with two negatives, being condescending, or that you're doing it wrong (or at least are expressing yourself badly), and that from there, unequivocally you should try to change (behave differently), seemed a tad narrow-minded to me. :smallsmile:

Back at an old job job I could assume nothing and tell people all I knew of the role they're to perform from the beginning. They would grow impatient, tell me they already know X, and breaking it down into simple steps would make me sound like a condescending ass.

Alternatively I could go hands off because they'd emphasized how they knew it all, and later I'd find them frantic and frustrated, with things starting to go wrong, not knowing how to do Y. Now I generally only need to be told something once to remember it, but I've recently been told that most people need to be told something a few times before it sticks, and it certainly wouldn't make them feel any better to know that I had already told them how to do Y when they were brushing me off.

In such a situation, being the condescending jerk may be preferable.


I don't mean to imply that your intent is wrong, and I probably should have been more clear in that I only partly disagreed, I guess I was mostly disagreeing with the semantics. Gah, semantics haunting us once more. :smallsigh:

[danzibr]

I got one. It's a phrase, but you hear it sometimes. "Do you actually not know how to ...?" or the like.

[AMFV]

I got one. It's a phrase, but you hear it sometimes. "Do you actually not know how to ...?" or the like.

That's not necessarily condescension though. I've seen that typically used as a criticism of the person's teachers, instructors, or superiors. Rather than as a criticism of the person themselves.

[Winter_Wolf]

I got one. It's a phrase, but you hear it sometimes. "Do you actually not know how to ...?" or the like.


That's not necessarily condescension though. I've seen that typically used as a criticism of the person's teachers, instructors, or superiors. Rather than as a criticism of the person themselves.

I say it sometimes. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely mystified how what is common and expected where I grew up isn't common practice/knowledge in the "civilized" world. More to the point, I actually know adult people who are proud to be completely inept at what are essentially basic life skills where I come from.

[Frozen_Feet]

I got one. It's a phrase, but you hear it sometimes. "Do you actually not know how to ...?" or the like.

Even when it's used in a condescending manner, it usually is triggered by genuine wonderment at another person's inability. When used as a rhetorical weapon against a person, it's usually part of some form of loaded question or false dichtomy.

[Ruslan]

Here's one, that, to me, completely screams "Look at me! I'm a condescending douche!": Pro-tip

Even if you're an actual professional (ie. hold a job in the field in question and get paid for it), you're probably better off not using this nauseating self-congratulation. Let alone if you are not a professional, but a ... let's say, a person on the internet who has an opinion on the topic. Please, don't ever say "Pro-tip". Please.

[Frozen_Feet]

"Pro-tip" is often used as sarcastic rhetorical tool to lampoon someone's lack of intellect or knowledge. It's rare to see it used to actually bolster the ego of the one using it. Indeed, typically the joke is that the supposed "professional" knowledge is something anyone could know. It's even used to poke fun at actual professionals, at times when their advice is inane.

[rooster707]

"Pro-tip" is often used as sarcastic rhetorical tool to lampoon someone's lack of intellect or knowledge. It's rare to see it used to actually bolster the ego of the one using it. Indeed, typically the joke is that the supposed "professional" knowledge is something anyone could know. It's even used to poke fun at actual professionals, at times when their advice is inane.

Protip: Bears live in caves. (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Bear_Lore)

[OldTrees1]

Here's one, that, to me, completely screams "Look at me! I'm a condescending douche!": Pro-tip

Even if you're an actual professional (ie. hold a job in the field in question and get paid for it), you're probably better off not using this nauseating self-congratulation. Let alone if you are not a professional, but a ... let's say, a person on the internet who has an opinion on the topic. Please, don't ever say "Pro-tip". Please.

There is a game that one can play for many years (figurative or literal) gaining understanding and experience the entire time.
New player: *question*
Veteran player: *helpful answer* "Pro-tip:" *additional useful information*

Example from Factory Idle:
New player: Why is my coal line being clogged?
Veteran: Conveyors only carry 10 items per 10 ticks. You might need 2 conveyor lines. Protip: You will also want to learn about the NESW conveyor natural sorting (details under "Help->Pro-Tips").