Live data from Hacker News

Privilege is bad grammar

tadaima.bearblog.dev

101–110 of 292 posts

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#101

This is almost textbook countersignalling. The same as: - Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways - No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else - Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here

[dead]

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not having to care is often part of the countersignaling If it’s used to signal, yes. The absence of a signal can be a signal. Or it can blend into the background. My point is wealthy folks wearing ordinary, loved clothes can be either, and in many cases it’s honestly just not giving a fuck and blending in with everyone else by happenstance.

A signal is a two way street. It remains a signal even if the signaler is oblivious to it but the observers still draw conclusions.

That's called projecting. If someone doesn't send a signal, but you believe you received it, that's on you, not them. You may _think_ the color of their skin or hair or the way they talk or dress or whatever "means/says something" (and, in some cases, it might) but it might just as well say something about you, not them.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#103
> If I had sent out an email with even a quarter of the typos they had, I probably would've lost my job.

Who told you that?

Or maybe... what state do you work in? I cannot even imagine starting the HR process to fire someone because of bad emails.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#104
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also: - No signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else because that's been my style since forever and I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.

Still signalling. People don't get to decide if they're signalling or not. They only get to decide if they'll consciously signal or subconsciously signal. They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.

> They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.

Unless you're Sherlock Holmes, or know the person and their wardrobe intimately, you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them.

Reddit and quora are littered with stories about car salesmen misreading what they thought were signals, and missing out on big sales. The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, as George Carlin pointed out, it's a big fat brown dick.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#105
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also: - No signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else because that's been my style since forever and I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.

Still signalling. People don't get to decide if they're signalling or not. They only get to decide if they'll consciously signal or subconsciously signal. They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.

I feel like this is actually that people don't get to decide if others will perceive signals.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A signal is a two way street. It remains a signal even if the signaler is oblivious to it but the observers still draw conclusions.

That's called projecting. If someone doesn't send a signal, but you believe you received it, that's on you, not them. You may _think_ the color of their skin or hair or the way they talk or dress or whatever "means/says something" (and, in some cases, it might) but it might just as well say something about you, not them.

You can call it whatever you want but people make inferences. Also there is no bright line between intentional and unintentional signaling. The brain is capable of hiding plenty of stuff from its own other parts. See the book "The elephant in the brain".

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#107

It’s because the higher you are in the chain of corporate command, the less time you have to dedicate to each task. You end up with shorter answers to every note because you wouldn’t have time to reply to all notes and do the strategic things you need to do, otherwise. As an individual contributor on a team, you may have to interface at most with 30 people on a weekly basis. As a second line leader you may have 150 p…

Using the example from the article: "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks"

I'm not buying your argument. The amount of additional time that it would have taken to write that same message with proper grammar and spelling is minuscule.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#108
I used to be super keen about grammar and typos in texts as well, recently, I have been intentionally keeping some mistakes to prove that a human actually wrote that text and wasn’t AI generated, from my personal observation, I found that people now assume any perfectly written text is an AI generated and ended up not reading it all.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#109

It’s because the higher you are in the chain of corporate command, the less time you have to dedicate to each task. You end up with shorter answers to every note because you wouldn’t have time to reply to all notes and do the strategic things you need to do, otherwise. As an individual contributor on a team, you may have to interface at most with 30 people on a weekly basis. As a second line leader you may have 150 p…

[deleted]

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#110

It’s because the higher you are in the chain of corporate command, the less time you have to dedicate to each task. You end up with shorter answers to every note because you wouldn’t have time to reply to all notes and do the strategic things you need to do, otherwise. As an individual contributor on a team, you may have to interface at most with 30 people on a weekly basis. As a second line leader you may have 150 p…

Shorter answers don't necessitate terrible grammar. Maybe it's because my mom was a teacher and I had good grammar drilled into me, but I feel like it shows respect for the people you're communicating with.

> respect for the people you're communicating with

That is exactly why executive grammar is so bad.

Post reply on HN