“You do realize”

[DammitVictor]

If you found a way to measure all of the unwarranted pedantry on the Internet, the concentration of it on this forum alone would be statistically significant-- and likely the source of many future scientific studies.

Likewise, if half of the condescending, pedantic jackasses on this forum were half as smart as they are smug, Morrus would starve to death in his house because of all the Nobels and Pulitzers burying his front door. There would be no more "orc discourse" or "Satanic panic" for us to argue about, because the newest edition of Dungeons & Dragons would have cured racism, crime, and cancer.

Your pet peeve is "you do realize..." and all of @CleverNickName 's list of red flags... well, until the day I die, my pet peeve is going to be grown-ass men who think pretending they're too stupid to understand an argument from an 8th-grade civics class makes them look smarter than the person trying to explain it to them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You do realize, that when you create a thread based on mocking the community, they will use that repeatedly on you, right?

 

[Todd Roybark]

Actually” is a terrible word and a worse convention. I’ve never once said or heard an “actually” that added anything to conversation.

I use "actually" quite a bit, alas. For me the word is an alternative to typing out the phrase "In my lived experience".
So if someone wrote, for example: "No one thinks the Bane spell is better then the Bless spell"
I likely would respond with something like this: "actually, I really like the Bane spell".

Bawylie, your posts come across to me, as very polite and considerate, so does the use of the word "actually" in the above example, connote something to you other then conveying:
"In my lived experience" ?

Other red flags that I've come across...
"To be honest..." (as opposed to, what?)
"I'm sorry but..." (...but you aren't really apologizing.)
"If I can play the devil's advocate..." (No. The devil doesn't need advocacy.)
"I don't wanna sound ____ but..." (...but I'm gonna anyway.)

I thought my posts oft irk CleverNickName, and now I can see why.
I use similar variations of most of those phrases.

As a person that received an autism spectrum diagnosis in my 40's, there are specific reasons why I use these phrases.

"To be honest" is meant to connote sincerity. I have my whole life been told that my use of language is more formal then what is typically considered normal. Like many people on the autism spectrum, I've come to accept that my emotional affect, is expressed in more muted tones than others. A "robot" like affect turns people off. Not liking to make eye contact turns people off, and makes them doubt your sincerity.

My use of the phrase "To be honest" is me saying, I'm not gaslighting you. I'm not playing rhetorical games....I'm being sincere..truly sincere...even if my mannerisms would typically fall into a category of behaviors that many, including the FBI, characterize as indicators of deception.

"I'm sorry but..." is me saying..."I disagree with your factual position, but not with you as a person, nor your right to hold an opposing view"......when you are a child with a robotic emotional affect...apologizing in advance, trying to deescalate with your literal words what you can't through tone, smiling, nor eye contact...is a survival technique....spares you a beating..(hopefully).

"If I may play devils advocate" is just indicating that I see an opposing viewpoint that can be argued. Generally, for myself, it also connotes that I am not emotionally attached to the position that I am delineating. It is a point made for factual completeness.....being inaccurate, not examining all avenues of inquiry on a topic bothers me in a way that could be considered OCD like.
Sadly, I often do this, whilst missing the behavioral cues the other person is sending that we are having a conversation dealing with emotion, and not fact. I work hard at trying to not do this, but I fail at this, so very much. I liken it to a person whom cannot see the color green, trying to navigate an art piece that only consists of the color green.

I don't think I use the last example of CleverNickName's...though, (admittedly), I will often write
"Politely" and then offer a differing view. It is not to gaslight anyone, nor acting as social cover to be outright rude. It is trying to signal, that while I might be coming off as rude, or trying to gaslight...I truly am not trying to. Sadly, I am a very literal person, vis a vis my word choice, and could not bluff to save my life.

Sorry for the long post. I also apologize for any distress, or irritations my mannerisms might create.

 

[Bawylie]

I use "actually" quite a bit, alas. For me the word is an alternative to typing out the phrase "In my lived experience".
So if someone wrote, for example: "No one thinks the Bane spell is better then the Bless spell"
I likely would respond with something like this: "actually, I really like the Bane spell".

Bawylie, your posts come across to me, as very polite and considerate, so does the use of the word "actually" in the above example, connote something to you other then conveying:
"In my lived experience" ?


I thought my posts oft irk CleverNickName, and now I can see why.
I use similar variations of most of those phrases.

As a person that received an autism spectrum diagnosis in my 40's, there are specific reasons why I use these phrases.

"To be honest" is meant to connote sincerity. I have my whole life been told that my use of language is more formal then what is typically considered normal. Like many people on the autism spectrum, I've come to accept that my emotional affect, is expressed in more muted tones than others. A "robot" like affect turns people off. Not liking to make eye contact turns people off, and makes them doubt your sincerity.

My use of the phrase "To be honest" is me saying, I'm not gaslighting you. I'm not playing rhetorical games....I'm being sincere..truly sincere...even if my mannerisms would typically fall into a category of behaviors that many, including the FBI, characterize as indicators of deception.

"I'm sorry but..." is me saying..."I disagree with your factual position, but not with you as a person, nor your right to hold an opposing view"......when you are a child with a robotic emotional affect...apologizing in advance, trying to deescalate with your literal words what you can't through tone, smiling, nor eye contact...is a survival technique....spares you a beating..(hopefully).

"If I may play devils advocate" is just indicating that I see an opposing viewpoint that can be argued. Generally, for myself, it also connotes that I am not emotionally attached to the position that I am delineating. It is a point made for factual completeness.....being inaccurate, not examining all avenues of inquiry on a topic bothers me in a way that could be considered OCD like.
Sadly, I often do this, whilst missing the behavioral cues the other person is sending that we are having a conversation dealing with emotion, and not fact. I work hard at trying to not do this, but I fail at this, so very much. I liken it to a person whom cannot see the color green, trying to navigate an art piece that only consists of the color green.

I don't think I use the last example of CleverNickName's...though, (admittedly), I will often write
"Politely" and then offer a differing view. It is not to gaslight anyone, nor acting as social cover to be outright rude. It is trying to signal, that while I might be coming off as rude, or trying to gaslight...I truly am not trying to. Sadly, I am a very literal person, vis a vis my word choice, and could not bluff to save my life.

Sorry for the long post. I also apologize for any distress, or irritations my mannerisms might create.

Thank you for the kind words.

I don’t object to “actually” as a substitute for “in my opinion” or “in my lived experience.” But, we rarely need to say “in my opinion,” when giving an opinion. Preferences and opinions don’t need qualifiers because there’s no real debate over taste.

I object to “actually” when it’s an unnecessary or superfluous correction; a qualifier with pointless levels of precision, specificity, or pedagogy that interrupts the flow or exchange of ideas.

Please note I’m talking about unneeded specificity. If we’re flying to the moon and I’m going the wrong way, I’ll need someone to say “Actually that’s wrong, turn it around or you’ll burn up our fuel.” No, I mean the ‘actually’ that happens when we’re sharing a story and I’ll describe something as blue or whatever and then the offender will say “actually it was Navy.” Or “I rolled an 18 and killed the last hobgoblin!” “Actually it was a bugbear and you rolled a 17.”

In these examples, the Actually interjection is technically correct but conversationally worthless. They don’t deepen any understanding or appreciation of the main point, they don’t add any drama, humor, or perspective, and they don’t invite response or commentary in a productive direction.

And that’s why I hate when I do it. Because instead of saying something cool or interesting or even worth thinking about or hearing, all I contribute is wet blanket corrective. “Actually, we didn’t park AT Disneyland. We parked two blocks south at the park and took a bus the rest of the way. It was $5.” Who freaking cares? The story is about going to Disneyland where I parked isn’t worth a second of your time!

 

[DammitVictor]

I don’t object to “actually” as a substitute for “in my opinion” or “in my lived experience.” But, we rarely need to say “in my opinion,” when giving an opinion. Preferences and opinions don’t need qualifiers because there’s no real debate over taste.

I feel like this is grossly inconsistent with my own lived experience of this forum. I've found that I can't make any declarative statement on any topic more subjective than mathematical axioms without some smarmy poindexter springing from his bed in the middle of the night to login and remind me that what I said was just my opinion.

Even when, you know, it actually wasn't.

There needs to be a name for the geek fallacy that the only facts anyone can know for certain are facts that agree with one's own position. It's a curious form of epistemology.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t object to “actually” as a substitute for “in my opinion” or “in my lived experience.” But, we rarely need to say “in my opinion,” when giving an opinion. Preferences and opinions don’t need qualifiers because there’s no real debate over taste.

Unfortunately, lots of people state, and defend, their opinions as facts. And statements without the qualifier are not textually distinguishable statements of facts. We must infer that the author knows and intends their statement to be merely opinion. Do you really want people to be inferring without support?

There is a point here about saying what you mean - "in my opinion" makes the intent clear. Why argue against clarity?

I object to “actually” when it’s an unnecessary or superfluous correction; a qualifier with pointless levels of precision, specificity, or pedagogy that interrupts the flow or exchange of ideas.

What is and is not necessary is often a matter of opinion.

 

[Bawylie]

I feel like this is grossly inconsistent with my own lived experience of this forum. I've found that I can't make any declarative statement on any topic more subjective than mathematical axioms without some smarmy poindexter springing from his bed in the middle of the night to login and remind me that what I said was just my opinion.

Even when, you know, it actually wasn't.

There needs to be a name for the geek fallacy that the only facts anyone can know for certain are facts that agree with one's own position. It's a curious form of epistemology.

I understand what you mean. Part of my point is to draw a distinction between Good conversation that all parties engage in good faith, with a nice exchange of concepts and an openness to alternate views and Bad conversations that are mostly poo-flinging (like the kind we often see on the internet). I concede that the border between good and bad conversations can get hazy.

And there is no shortage of smarmy poindexters! Of course we all believe our opinions are the correct ones. Why on earth would I ever hold an opinion I believed was wrong? And likewise there are a lot of people who use motivated reasoning to support their beliefs. That’s a very human thing to do. (I think there’s some research suggesting that the smarter you are, the better you are able to convince yourself that your beliefs and opinions are correct and that’s weirdly neat because even the big brained are like the rest of us, fundamentally).

Anyway, when I’m talking about “we rarely need to say an opinion is an opinion” I mean that for good conversations. Because “well, that’s just like your opinion, man” isn’t too terribly engaging and often marks the boundary in the exchange where you can exempt yourself from further discussion because it’s veering toward Bad Lands.

So I find i have better conversations when I stop “actually”-ing and when I don’t get into dumb-dumb arguments over opinions, (or examples and analogies, for that matter).

 

[Bawylie]

There is a point here about saying what you mean - "in my opinion" makes the intent clear. Why argue against clarity?

What is and is not necessary is often a matter of opinion.

I didn’t argue against clarity. I argue for adopting the most charitable interpretation of someone else’s point.

I also don’t set any rules for anyone else’s behavior. Because I only govern myself, I try to stop doing things to others that annoy me when they are done to me and to engage with others the way I’d want them to engage with me. Obviously I don’t always succeed, but I try.

Even still, a good “in my experience” is no inoculation to a bad inference. I’ve seen a poster talk about their experiences at their own game table only for someone else to respond “That’s Your table. Are you saying your experiences are universal? Because they’re not!” And “Just because you have no problem with something doesn’t mean nobody else has a problem with it.” All kinds of crap that person never said.

When I anticipate that, I put in a disclaimer: “I’m talking about my own games at my own table. I am not making any judgments about anyone else’s games which I am sure are delightful.” I’ve also used “I feel no obligation to defend your hallucination of my point” as a response when I’m taken in very bad faith. But I’ve been trying not to use that one lately and instead assume I wasn’t sufficiently clear.

 

[Umbran]

I didn’t argue against clarity. I argue for adopting the most charitable interpretation of someone else’s point.

Right, but...

I also don’t set any rules for anyone else’s behavior. Because I only govern myself, I try to stop doing things to others that annoy me when they are done to me and to engage with others the way I’d want them to engage with me. Obviously I don’t always succeed, but I try.

And, that's great that you do that.

Now, in your own human experience, how often is that done on the internet? And, what does it say about how charitable one should be in interpreting the words of others?

It would seem to me that the onus should be on the writer to say what they actually mean, rather than putting the onus on the reader to interpret in a charitable manner... just to save the author having to write a few words to clarify.

Even still, a good “in my experience” is no inoculation to a bad inference. I’ve seen a poster talk about their experiences at their own game table only for someone else to respond “That’s Your table. Are you saying your experiences are universal? Because they’re not!” And “Just because you have no problem with something doesn’t mean nobody else has a problem with it.” All kinds of crap that person never said.

So, this is clearly context dependent - there's a basic question of why the author is mentioning their personal experience. Every communication has a purpose. So, what is the purpose of stating the personal experience?

How often is that experinece mentioned but not intended as the basis of some conclusion?

 

[Bawylie]

“It would seem to me that the onus should be on the writer to say what they actually mean, rather than putting the onus on the reader to interpret in a charitable manner... just to save the author having to write a few words to clarify.”

-This is why I take it on myself as an author to be clear and as a reader to be generous. I can place no onus on anyone but myself. And I do that so I can aim myself at being a better person, not “just to save the author having to write a few words.” I don’t feel I can fairly blame someone else for my own ignorance either. A focus on authorial intent to the exclusion of personal interpretation is counterproductive. I like some measure of both rather than disclaiming any personal responsibility at all.

“Now, in your own human experience, how often is that done on the internet? And, what does it say about how charitable one should be in interpreting the words of others?”

-I don’t know how often it’s done. (I’d say “not as much as it should be”). But if I want it to be done more, then I should directly contribute to that effort myself and recognize when others do it too.

-edit: not good at multi-quote, sorry