Nerd Pride Radio

This thread is just for petty things that bug you, even though you know they shouldn't.

If you are saying something and then say "full stop" then you need to stop talking after you say "full stop."

For example- don't do this:

Q: Did the impeachment managers prove their case on impeachment?
A: Yes. Full stop. The case they put on.... [proceed to talk for two minutes.]

Come on. You said full stop. You need to full stop.

I know this shouldn't bug me. I understand that this bugs me in the same way it bugs me when someone uses "literally" to mean "figuratively." And I understand that language is evolving, blah blah blah. But just know that I think you're stupid when you give a short answer, say "full stop," and then go on to explain your answer. Honestly? Probably don't even say "full stop." Just say "Yes" and let the awkward silence make your point for you.

For what it's worth- the example above was something that I actually heard on CNN tonight.

Can a pet peeve be an anti-pet peeve, like say double negatives are perfectly fine in speech. Intonation and context should be enough to clue you into the intent, and plus double negatives never sounded bad.

poorpete wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:46 pm Can a pet peeve be an anti-pet peeve, like say double negatives are perfectly fine in speech. Intonation and context should be enough to clue you into the intent, and plus double negatives never sounded bad.

Agreed. A double negative is just an intensifier. When "never" isn't strong enough... try "NOT never!" Every time a double negative is used this way, every listener knows exactly what you mean. And you know they know, because when they correct you, they are telling you what you mean. So you obviously conveyed the information effectively.

So this is appropriate to the thread because the pet peeve is people who fastidiously correct double negatives.

Pet Peeve, and maybe I mentioned this before.

In an uninterrupted editable written piece, someone makes a pun and then writes, "no pun intended."

J'ACCUSE! You intended that pun! If you didn't, you can edit out the pun. Are you sending us your first draft? Are you writing out this prose in a stream-of-consciousness? "No pun intended" is intended for magic trick moments, when you say something, and only after reflecting on that something, do you realize there is a pun there. When you can edit the entirety of that something and its response, the magic is gone.

Kyle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:13 pm If you are saying something and then say "full stop" then you need to stop talking after you say "full stop."

This usage is permissible:

Rankin' Full Stop

Akiva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:15 am

Kyle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:13 pm If you are saying something and then say "full stop" then you need to stop talking after you say "full stop."

This usage is permissible:

Rankin' Full Stop

Sustained.

poorpete wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:21 amJ'ACCUSE! You intended that pun!

Akiva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:15 am This usage is permissible:

Rankin' Full Stop

I hate when people make up terms when we already have a perfectly good word--why do we need "futurecast" when we have "forecast?"

I also hate when businesses turn nouns into verbs--like "leverage."

And I hate stupid buzz words that are used a lot in education (not sure if they are in other fields) such as "data-driven" and "deep dive."

And educators are terrible social scientists.

Akiva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:42 pm why do we need "futurecast" when we have "forecast?"

This is because everything in the category is technically a futurecast, but the world is run by people who play golf and needed a special word to shout when they expected someone to be hit with a ball in the near future.

I also hate when businesses turn nouns into verbs--like "leverage."

SILOING
DIALOGUING
MATRIXING
SYNERGIZING
MONETIZING

Other offenses:
AGILE (any aspect)
BANDWIDTH
CHANGE AGENT
FORWARD PLANNING
VERTICAL
DISRUPTIVE
BEST PRACTICES
RESULTS or OUTCOMES DRIVEN or DATA DRIVEN
REACHING OUT to which the only decent response is GODDAMNIT I AM NEVER EVER REACHING OUT TO YOU WITH MY CONCERNS IM SAYING PLEASE STOP YOUR FUCKERY NOW

Akiva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:45 pm"deep dive."

I use deep-dive when talking films and music and probably overuse it, like recently, I heard the 1932 song "Jig Time" by The Three Keys on a podcast (Centuries of Sound), and loved it, so told the podcast maker that I was totally going to deep-dive on The Three Keys, only to find they have only five recorded songs total. That's not a deep dive, that's a snack break.




Pandemic Pete Pet Peeve: don't hold the door for me, I don't want to be any closer to you than necessary.

Phoebe wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:18 pm

Akiva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:42 pm why do we need "futurecast" when we have "forecast?"

This is because everything in the category is technically a futurecast, but the world is run by people who play golf and needed a special word to shout when they expected someone to be hit with a ball in the near future.

I also hate when businesses turn nouns into verbs--like "leverage."

SILOING
DIALOGUING
MATRIXING
SYNERGIZING
MONETIZING

Other offenses:
AGILE (any aspect)
BANDWIDTH
CHANGE AGENT
FORWARD PLANNING
VERTICAL
DISRUPTIVE
BEST PRACTICES
RESULTS or OUTCOMES DRIVEN or DATA DRIVEN
REACHING OUT to which the only decent response is GODDAMNIT I AM NEVER EVER REACHING OUT TO YOU WITH MY CONCERNS IM SAYING PLEASE STOP YOUR FUCKERY NOW

I remembered another one--drill down.

I'll be honest with y'all- none of that bothers me. Like- not a little bit. I don't understand why Phoebe's bother her. What's wrong with using with terms like "disruptive" or "data driven" or "reaching out."

Again- it's cool that they bother you- that's what this thread is about. But I don't understand why.

poorpete wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:21 am Pet Peeve, and maybe I mentioned this before.

In an uninterrupted editable written piece, someone makes a pun and then writes, "no pun intended."

J'ACCUSE! You intended that pun! If you didn't, you can edit out the pun. Are you sending us your first draft? Are you writing out this prose in a stream-of-consciousness? "No pun intended" is intended for magic trick moments, when you say something, and only after reflecting on that something, do you realize there is a pun there. When you can edit the entirety of that something and its response, the magic is gone.

Dear Mr. Kyle,
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns about my concerns. I hope that by reaching out today I can help you to understand why nobody who says the words data driven is actually making a data informed decision at all, but is instead merely using the latest disruptive terms to make a disruptive impact on a business ecosystem in which professionals feel prevented from reaching out with their data driven concerns. The words data driven are generally appealed to in situations where one wishes to enforce one's will but lacks an argument and therefore makes a vague gesture towards being supported by empirical evidence AKA data. I'm glad we could get out of our respective silos to optimize our responsiveness and better leverage the people assets of our organization.

I get the idea of hating how certain people use the phrases- and I agree. But I don't know that I condemn the phrases themselves because of the ignorant intentions of hollow-shelled, soulless people.

These phrases would not offend in themselves if normal people used them frequently,* but instead they populate the language of mindless dumkopfs who wish to have their own selfish way and control others while pretending to be reasoning things out together or generally appearing to be smarter than they are, full stop.

* Reaching out is inherently offensive, condescending, patronizing bullcrap to use in a professional context unless someone is actually reaching out, which 99.9% of the time they certainly are not.

Corporate speech is a self-reinforcing cycle of blame separation and never wanting to seem out of the loop. Buzzwords are cowardly because one person coins a cute phrase to seem clever, and everyone copies it. It's one of the purest forms of memetic communication, synergistically pre-dating the internet by decades. No one emails someone with a simple "where's the project?" because that sounds rude and you might be blamed for hurt feelings. So we 'reach out'.

I'm used to it now, but I definitely see reasons for the hatred. It's like legalese.

I remembered another one that annoys the crap out of me: people who say "methodology" when the mean "method."

I think at least some of mine are people who use words that they think make them sound smart.

Orientated.

No... the correct word is oriented. But orientated has been reverse engineered from orientation, and now the two words have different meanings. Oriented retains the "I've gotten my bearings" meaning, and orientated covers "I've been trained."

I get all that, but the word still bugs me. Thankfully it is in rare usage in my area.

[Just looked it up. Orientate is standard British English now, while orient is considered proper American English. But there is bleed-through and overlap. Interesting.]

WillyGilligan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:24 am Corporate speech is a self-reinforcing cycle of blame separation and never wanting to seem out of the loop. Buzzwords are cowardly because one person coins a cute phrase to seem clever, and everyone copies it. It's one of the purest forms of memetic communication, synergistically pre-dating the internet by decades. No one emails someone with a simple "where's the project?" because that sounds rude and you might be blamed for hurt feelings. So we 'reach out'.

I'm used to it now, but I definitely see reasons for the hatred. It's like legalese.

This is so true. I am positive you are right about people trying to sound less rude by saying things like "I'm just reaching out to see when we can expect the project from you?" when what they mean to say is "Hello, we need the project by the 21st, please let me know if you foresee any impediment to REACHING that target date" she said just to use reaching in another way because garrrrrr! I find the latter approach far more respectful of my work as an adult professional, while the former approach smells not-so-faintly like, are you sick and damaged and in need of help over there to get your shit done on time? I.e. it's rude by being condescending, while the alternative recognizes that legit questions are legit communications. But what I really hate is when you contact someone else with the latter approach, like "can we expect the project by Friday so we can make our edits then?" and you get back "thank you for reaching out with your inquiry about the project". No I did not REACH OUT TO YOU like a kitten seeking a pet or a fresh bowl of kibble - I asked a simple question, yes or no! Pet peeve AHAHAHAAAAA it peeves me indeed.

Akiva you told us about methodology and ever since I have been living with a light layer of paranoia because I use both of those words ALL THE TIME and am worried I'm doing it incorrectly. I don't think I'm doing it incorrectly but that never stops worry, as you know! Irrational worry is an endless fountain.

Phoebe wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:03 pm Akiva you told us about methodology and ever since I have been living with a light layer of paranoia because I use both of those words ALL THE TIME and am worried I'm doing it incorrectly. I don't think I'm doing it incorrectly but that never stops worry, as you know! Irrational worry is an endless fountain.

All your bases are belong to us.

This one is EVERGREEN: People who have to turn 10 degrees right before turning 90 degrees left, as if they are driving an enormous tractor trailer instead of a RAV4. Or equally upsetting: people who turn left before turning right. The worst of all is when they have to make about a 30 degree veer off to the left at one intersection I frequent, and instead do the 10 degree to the right prior to correcting back to the left. MY GOD WHY CAN'T PEOPLE TURN THE WHEEL ONE DIRECTION WITHOUT TURNING IT THE OTHER WAY FIRST? I am a big fan of lane maintenance. I probably could not drive at all in many areas of the world where lane maintenance has not even been heard of, much less followed resolutely. STAY IN YOUR LANE DRIVERS. STAY THERE.

I am bothered by the use of "less" in place of "fewer" when there are times when one of them is clearly the correct usage or so my little mind thinks.

Since the thread is called pet peeves, uh, this entire 3-month period when the yard is like a soggy sponge made of mud, with a delicate veneer of poo on top. Does anyone have a realistic solution for this? Can I put a small water trough outside the door and just dip them in bodily each time they come in?

I just remembered another one--when people say "expresso" instead of "espresso." Annoys the crap out of me.

I find this vaguely irritating as well.

More pet peeves in the category of pet: I really hate it when people let their dogs roam off leash, in areas where it's not appropriate to do this, because they so sincerely believe their dog is a great dog who would never do anything wrong. Well that's nice. They're oblivious to the many types of problems this causes.

I'm an expresso sayer, and I pronounce the "s' in Illinois too. It's hard to change, but I'm trying, thank you for your patience

poorpete wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:51 pm I'm an expresso sayer, and I pronounce the "s' in Illinois too. It's hard to change, but I'm trying, thank you for your patience

You, sir, are worse than Hitler!!!!!

Hehehehe

Similarly, not quite pet peeves, but kinda wish we'd all try to say names of locations in their original pronunciation. This might be a pet peeve for others, that I do this. Like, I annoy my family by calling a Grand Portage, "gran por-tagsh." I think Paris should always be pronounced "Par-ee" and there's no reason we call Roma "Rome." I get it when it's like Союз Советских Социалистических Республик we'll just say USSR, but when it's like Mexico, we can easilly say "Me-he-co." We've sorta moved on this, like no longer calling Beijing "Peking" because we were dumb to think they were saying "Peking" when in fact they were saying Beijing. We can do this!

"The person that..."

The person that left their keys.
The guy that I was supposed to meet.
The actor that originated the part.

It doesn't matter, because language is always evolving and all that matters is effectively communicating ideas, blah, blah, blah. And yet every time I hear this, something in my head screams, "People are a 'who', not a 'that'!"

I know it doesn't matter, but it's like nails on a chalkboard.

poorpete wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:51 pm I'm an expresso sayer, and I pronounce the "s' in Illinois too. It's hard to change, but I'm trying, thank you for your patience

That's okay. I say Illinois in a manner very much like wargggggggggggggggggggggh, so...

I live in Wisconsin, so we pronounce Illinois like "F**king Illinois". As in, "F**king Illinois driver!" Can be abbreviated as "FID". See also: FIDTAB - F**king Illinois driver towing a boat.

FlameBlade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:16 pm

poorpete wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:51 pm I'm an expresso sayer, and I pronounce the "s' in Illinois too. It's hard to change, but I'm trying, thank you for your patience

That's okay. I say Illinois in a manner very much like wargggggggggggggggggggggh, so...

I love you so much.

Kyle wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:46 pm

FlameBlade wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:16 pm

poorpete wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:51 pm I'm an expresso sayer, and I pronounce the "s' in Illinois too. It's hard to change, but I'm trying, thank you for your patience

That's okay. I say Illinois in a manner very much like wargggggggggggggggggggggh, so...

I love you so much.

Agreed! This is the best thing I've read all week. Thank you.

I do not know how to say the -s- in Illinois. Is it like Mayonnaise or a dudebro saying Noice! ?
Yes we should try to say the place names correctly like they say it in the place - why not? If you don't know how, then OK, but if enough people did it then it might spread around that way.

People are a WHO not an IT and yes that grates on the eye and ear.

I don't know whether the drivers from Illinoisss are bad, but I can tell you, don't go any further west! It gets worse before getting better. The driving in Iowa alone is a reason to take that early primary away from them immediately. Whenever you're utterly baffled by a person's driving - not so much just terrified or annoyed, but BAFFLED because it makes no human sense - inevitably you realize, well, it's because they're from Iowa. I believe in driving with a rational purpose that you communicate clearly to other drivers so they can predict your behavior. If someone wants to speed and be all crazy, if they're PREDICTABLE then whatever, do your thing, I'll exit your lane. But the aimless, confused wandering of the Iowegian driver! Is Iowegian a racist term? I hope not.

Yup, like so

Phoebe wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:06 pm Is Iowegian a racist term? I hope not.

I think they prefer Iowan, but Iowegian isn't racist. But I feel like viewing your neighbors as bad drivers is tangentially related to racism. Because most places I've lived, there's been a neighboring group that drives in our area in smaller, but noticable numbers. In Nebraska, you identify these people by the county number on their license plates. If you live near a border, you spot them by their out-of-state plates. And this group gets a reputation as bad drivers based on what I think is selective attention and overgeneralization.

In my overly white area, if a white person is rude, then people say that person's rude. If a Hispanic-looking person is rude, then they say all Mexicans are rude.

I live in 7 county. If a 7-county driver cuts me off, they're an asshole. If a 40-county driver cuts me off, all 40-county drivers are assholes.

That's exactly the kind of thing a 7 would say.

Stan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:24 pm That's exactly the kind of thing a 7 would say.

Tell me about it. All 7s are insufferably self-righteous.

You know who's worse? 1s and 2s. Their counties are so populous that they don't even have room on their plates for a county number. Talk about pretentious!

Or they just don't need one marked there to warn one another, e.g. in the way they would need to be warned that a 59 is present? I would accept this theory about faulty generalizations from anecdotal evidence if there were no fundamental distinction in the kinds of traffic or traffic laws in these different places. Yet there are distinctions which I hypothesize result in a difference in driving capacities and intentionality. To make the contrast more pointed, imagine dropping the average rural or small-town Iowa driver onto the Houston freeway: a formula one formula for disaster. In much the same way that I never really learned to drive until I had driven for a while in places like Boston, the hapless, innocent Iowan who has been puttering around at max 60 mph over Hill and Dale may be fully bewildered when presented with a four-lane road and stoplights. But more importantly we can experiment over a period of many years: when one encounters a driver tailgating like a maniac and ready to run you into the ditch, wildly swinging between lanes at 80 miles an hour, that's not likely to be an Iowan, but if you find somebody wandering aimlessly across the surface of the pavement as if there are no lane lines at all and they have no idea what planet they're on, you have found your Iowan. You would have to put this to the test empirically. There are other interesting empirical tests I imagine, like the difference between a one and a two (comfortable cruising speeds; the ability to go on green and stop at red, or total lack thereof) or a one and a 59 (raw obscene entitlement).

But we're not talking about transporting someone to a completely different area. if you live in a place close enough to Iowa to consistently have their drivers baffling you with their weird ways, then I would have thought you would have communities in your own state similar to those from Iowa who must also have similar driving experiences informing their decisions, and you don't find any reason to note them. I'm assuming then that your state has vastly different traffic regulations and road structures, thus explaining the difference.

It does indeed! Here in Xanadu the roads spiral skyward in complex formations, with two-way patterns changing suddenly to one-way patterns, roundabouts, five-way stops, and multiple-lane promenades that forbid left turns, with lanes that might go north at one hour of day and south at another. If you have only ever driven ma's pickup from the Iowanian homestead to the quickie mart and back, the mysteries of Xanadu may readily overwhelm the senses. You find yourself blocking entire roadways by trying to turn left where such maneuvers are strictly verboten, or crawling along unaware of which lane stays and which lane goes, since no one knows! Venture not into the secret realms, Iowans, stay within your own slower-speed-limit borders now and always.

I knew it!

Phoebe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:18 pm It does indeed! Here in Xanadu the roads spiral skyward in complex formations, with two-way patterns changing suddenly to one-way patterns, roundabouts, five-way stops, and multiple-lane promenades that forbid left turns, with lanes that might go north at one hour of day and south at another. If you have only ever driven ma's pickup from the Iowanian homestead to the quickie mart and back, the mysteries of Xanadu may readily overwhelm the senses. You find yourself blocking entire roadways by trying to turn left where such maneuvers are strictly verboten, or crawling along unaware of which lane stays and which lane goes, since no one knows! Venture not into the secret realms, Iowans, stay within your own slower-speed-limit borders now and always.

You're describing my town where roads are non-euclidean, seemingly time-space warped. And oh, roads are named after famous literary people and their works.

Seriously. Roads warp unto themselves in unexpected ways, and there's always some routes that are like 5 minutes faster than obvious routes, and on occasions, they add up, and you get there in negative time, except that for the fact that no matter when you leave, it always takes exactly 30 minutes to get to any other point in the town no matter where.

Speaking vaguely of non-Euclidean streets—in DC there are numerous streets that appear and disappear. And (I swear this true) there is at least one case of a street running parallel . . . to itself.

Related to that, it bugs me when people say it’s easy to drive in DC. Parts of it are. But a lot of it—including downtown—is a huge pain in the ass. And if you’re near the river, there’s about a 2/3 chance you’ll end up going to Virginia, whether you want to or not.