Please don’t think I’m here to complain about rizz or skibidi toilet etc. Thats all fine by me.
The term I dislike strongly is ‘eeeh’ before you make a statement disagreeing with someone. (This is over text only). Now maybe I’ve been pavloved bc it’s always used by someone disagreeing. But I’m happy with people disagreeing with me normally its just the ‘eeeh’ or ‘erm’ that annoys me.
So what’s a random term that annoys you?
PS. Saying “eeeh actually ‘eeh’ is a perfectly fine term” would be a ridiculously easy joke and I will judge you for making it. And I know atleast one person will. Especially bow that I’ve said all this.
It’s not a word but ‘…’ ok… thanks… I guess…
What do you want? Is it on our do you want something else? It’s fine…
Cmon…
The replacement of the term “conspiracy theory” with just “conspiracy”.
That’s two different things. If we equate the two semantically we can’t discuss them.
“Solidarity” as it’s too often used to make others do things you want.
What, like not be a transphobic piece of shit?
New bot dropped: Transphobia count bot. Goes thru the modlog and counts amount of times they’ve been moderated for transphobia
I am making a list with all my bots for when I learn computersOkay that is a really good one. We should implement that asap
Ideas guy strikes again. I’ll return in 18 months once I’ve learned how to type on a keyboard with more than one finger
that slaps
STFU!
“Oftentimes”
Its always interchangeable with Often. Just use Often.
“Irregardless”
“Cyber” 🙄
Game Changer, a stupid phrase that is so overused it has become meaningless
Game Changer was a game changer.
Please do the needful.
This one really grinds my gears! I think it’s because the person can’t even be bothered to describe what they want you to do, just go fix it and don’t bother me with any details.
The history of that phrase and how it re-entered modern English is fascinating though!
Indian here. Redditors say that Indians say this a lot. I’d like to tell you that while Indians do use this sentence, it’s almost always placed only after a long, somewhat-gone-off-tangent-in-some-places conversation that explained everything well.
Maaaaaaybe it was to convince you without describing tasks, but… mostly, it’s not so.
Also, I don’t remember hearing it IRL at all. Just felt like I have heard it at least twice in my 18 years of humaning around.
But why use such an awkward construction? Why not “please handle this” or “please take care of this”? Or even “please take the necessary steps to address this”? “Please do the needful” is saying Please [VERB] the [ADJECTIVE]. But the correct construction is to verb a noun. So you need a noun (e.g., “this”) to act on.
And additionally, “needful” is an adjective, and rarely ever used anyway. For example, you could probably describe a homeless person as “needful”, but it sounds awkward, and most people would say “needy” or “in need.”
Not a term, but a lack thereof:
People I have to regularly interact with for work have been excluding “to be”, especially with “needs”, and it’s infuriating.
This issue needs escalated. That report needs fleshed out. Let me know if anything needs cleared up.
My brother-in-law says the dishes “need washed” and it’s nails on a goddamn chalkboard every time I hear it.
To quote Shakespeare, “Or not?”
Those sound so wrong
So many things. In written form, I hate when someone writes “Period.” after they make a point to mean “this can’t be argued” or whatever. My good bitch, I don’t think you understand how arguing works. 😆
“Full stop” is a close second.
It’s a perfectly valid way to win an argument, end of sentence.
Ha serves me right ✌🏻
“Hands down”
Yes ugh 😩
Q.E.D.
Q👏E👏D👏
That’s fine as long as you don’t spell out the periods. 😆
By the by, I’d love to be the guy with the confidence to end an argument with “thus it is proven”. That’d be epic. I think I’ve only ever used QED humorously or ironically.
If you don’t have the periods it could just be someone saying qed really loud
Would that be pronounced KED or KWED I wonder? Or maybe just a large belch. 😆
“Folks” makes my skin crawl. I feel like it’s used to make someone appear friendlier while saying “you people”, in the context of being manipulated by someone with power.
“Completely different” when the two things are actually very similar
Queer. Not all gay men (the one group I can safely speak about) like to be associated with an ex-slur and its connotations.
I’ve always thought queer had 2 connotations. The first being the slur. The second is a catch all for someone not lgbt or someone who doesn’t know what they are yet.
Agreed!
But there’s also a certain expectation of “flamboyance” from the gay community, or you’re “not gay enough” and I think a lot of self-identifying queer peeps are to blame.
On top of the poor history of the word, I just don’t want to be associated with colourfulness and energy because that’s simply not who I am. People from outside looking into LGBTQ+ assume that that’s who gay men need to be because of media representation… It makes me tired.
But there’s also a certain expectation of “flamboyance” from the gay community, or you’re “not gay enough” and I think a lot of self-identifying queer peeps are to blame.
I feel this is due to a noticeably high level of what I’ve come to call “the ladder-puller generation” among gay folk. Y’know, the white faux-upper-class guys or girls who got the white collar job, do everything in their power to maintain a pristine aura of political ‘good-one-ness’ even when it means throwing their disadvantaged supposed-kin under the nearest bus. The ones who pulled up the ladders behind them as soon as they got to ‘routine brunch-goer’ level. I put it on them, and the compatibles that just welcome cops and corporations into Pride when it was supposed to be a riot against those forces.
If someone isn’t loudly and proudly out around me, if someone goes to bat for rainbow-washers that shuck and jive for thirty days just to pump extra profit, then I automatically assume they’re a ladder-puller that would sell me out to whoever for whatever if it meant they could get a little bit further in the cosplay-cishettry that is their life; because sometimes, it’s the ladder-puller gays that are more dangerous to us than the cishet settlers.
tl;dr, they might fuck like us, but they not like us; and it’d take a near-government level background check for me to trust someone like that.
I am someone who really likes the term for myself, because it can encompass a whole bunch of complex identities across gender and sexuality. It feels like it simplifies things for me, and has helped me to properly understand the necessity of LGBTQ solidarity. There have been times when I have been told it’s inappropriate for me to personally identify as queer because some people find the term offensive, which I find absurd because such a large and heterogeneous community will never be unanimous on what terms or labels to use.
However, much more frequently than that, I have seen people being insensitive to the reality that there are a ton of people who have pretty legitimate beef with the term and who don’t want it applied to them. I’m talking about situations like “queer folk like us <gestures at the entire room>” or “the queer community”. It’s a pretty reasonable request if someone says “hey, if you’re referring to a group that involves me, I’d prefer you not use queer as a blanket term”. The appropriate response to that is “I’m sorry, my bad”, but I have seen way too many people start arguments that actually the (usually but certainly not always) older gay men are obstacles to Progress.
I like the way that a friend of mine framed it when he said that he’s actively jazzed to see a word that did such harm being reclaimed by a new generation who are finding great power and solidarity in it. But that’s never going to erase the sting he still feels when remembering being victimised for years by people who’d shout that word. “You can’t reclaim a slur if you ignore all its history and disown the members of your community who experienced it as a slur”.
It boggles my mind that there are people who are heavy advocates of the power of self determination of one’s identity, but who don’t see the issue in forcing the label of “queer” onto individuals who have expressly rejected it.
I cringe so hard at the twitterist carebear-hugbox way of smugly claiming the intellectual high ground and shaming somebody:
“Be better.” or “Do better.”
The sentiment isn’t terrible, but it’s prevalent use is obviously just dripping with arrogance and thrown out in the most petty ways. Ugh!
They’re the same types that appear in comment threads with contradictory arguments to literally fucking anything -
“We should save the whales”
“Yes but my cousin got splashed by a whale on a boat trip as a toddler and now has a terrible phobia that makes her wheeze whenever she sees one. Do you want that, is that what you want?”
“We should plan walkable cities”
“OH MY GOD SHES IN A WHEELCHAIR TOO DO YOU ONLY EVER THINK ABOUT YOURSELF YOU ABLEIST”
😂
My theory is that they’re just unbelievably bo-o-o-o-oring, humourless people with nothing to add to a conversation but a desperate need for attention
The wheelchair one (whilst obvious hyperbole) is a great example of why this rhetoric isn’t useful.
Often people who say we should plan walkable cities don’t consider what that would mean for wheelchair users and other disabled people, because they don’t have the lived experience to think along those lines. So it would actually be super useful if someone could say “okay, but what about wheelchair users?” in a constructive way, because there are additional considerations re: pedestrianisation and public transport. Disabled people are way too often treated like an inconvenience or obstacles to progress, and that’s fucking exhausting, so it’s useful to have allies who ask “hey, what about disabled people tho”
The people your comment is about don’t do this. As you highlight, they make things about themselves, and if anything, this makes it harder to have productive conversations about what a ‘walkable city’ for everyone would look like. I suspect that for many of these people, it’s based on a nugget of good intentions inside a blob of insecurity and dread at the state of the world; they feel like they’re not doing enough so they resort to very loudly virtue signalling in the most bizarre ways.
See?
The “whilst obvious hyperbole” bit is the clue. The two situations/comments/opinions are just examples, never happened and never will
It wouldn’t have mattered what examples I’d made up, someone like you would come along and go “wELL aKShULLy”
Fucksake!
My dude, I’m agreeing with you
Edit: effectively I was saying that I agree with you that there seems to be a particular kind of person who is overly contrarian, very loud and impossible to have productive discussions with.
I felt like the wheelchair example you picked was a great example of how this happens “in the wild”. I wanted to build on your comment by using that example to elaborate on how these contrarian types cause harm, even if they might seem to be concerned and well-intentioned. I found the wheelchair example to be a good one because it is actually something that I’ve seen happen multiple times.
I feel that your reply is an unfair characterisation of my comment. Given how the internet’s communication norms can prime us to read and respond to things in an overly adversarial manner (especially as it’s clear from your original comment that you’ve got way too much experience with silly argumentative types, so I sympathise), I am hoping that your response was based on a misinterpretation of my comment and/or me being insufficiently clear in what I originally wrote (apologies if so).
“We should plan walkable cities”
“OH MY GOD SHES IN A WHEELCHAIR TOO DO YOU ONLY EVER THINK ABOUT YOURSELF YOU ABLEIST”I don’t understand this one? Walkable cities are better for wheelchair users.
Sometimes, a settler needs for shaming.
