Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privilege is bad grammar

tadaima.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 292 posts

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#121

Post by freetime2 »

azangru wrote: post #116

> but grammar privilege? That's certainly a first. Here is what I don't understand, and what is not addressed in the post. After you get a response from your boss that reads, "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks", doesn't this free you up to relax your style to your comfort level? If you see that your addressee doesn't seem to care for meticulous style, is there much point in stressing over it (and thus, in co…

Unfortunately there is a double standard at play. When people see a sloppy email from a powerful person, they think “they must be so busy that they don’t have time to check grammar”. But when it comes from a low-level employee they think “oh they must be careless or uneducated”.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#122

Post by zephen »

wolframhempel wrote: post #36

I'd put it the other way around: Bad Grammar is a courtesy. I run a startup that's small, but busy. I get a high frequency stream of inbound questions, notifications and asks to make decisions by my team and customers. If I don't respond or decide quickly I become a bottleneck. Likewise, if I wait, things pile up. So, rather than keep everyone waiting for me, I make a point of pulling my phone out as soon as I get a…

> Bad Grammar is a courtesy.

I agree. Or at least to the extent that the complaint is that bad grammar signifies dispensing with formality, dispensing with formality is often a courtesy.

Too many people have it drilled into them that "If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well" when in reality if a job is worth doing, it is often worth doing very badly indeed, because it really, really just needs to be done.

It takes a large amount of very unproductive navel-gazing to assume that a message that unequivocally gives you the information you need, yet that doesn't measure up to your own perceptions of how much effort should have gone into the crafting of the email, is an insult directed at you, rather than a focus on the message rather than the medium.

Even if Marshall McLuhan's dictum is correctly applied to this scenario, the message conveyed by the medium could well be "Stop wasting so much time agonizing over phrasing! Just spit it out!" rather than "I'm better than you so I can get away with sloppy shit that I would excoriate you for."

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#124

Post by ambicapter »

azangru wrote: post #116

> but grammar privilege? That's certainly a first. Here is what I don't understand, and what is not addressed in the post. After you get a response from your boss that reads, "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks", doesn't this free you up to relax your style to your comfort level? If you see that your addressee doesn't seem to care for meticulous style, is there much point in stressing over it (and thus, in co…

No, I read that they know they have the power so they don't care, and I'm not powerful enough to not. It's like listening to your boss's boss talking about his heli-skiing adventures.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#125

Post by zephen »

lkey wrote: post #99
daralthus wrote: post #93

ppl are so sensitive. it's not impolite to be direct. why would you be wasting each other's time by "dear, sincerely etc" every single time.

y ask q u dunno answer 2?

To be fair, most questions are asked because the querent does not know the answer.

But [that's not what happened here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question)

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#126

Post by zephen »

dostick wrote: post #73

I am more appalled that all those emails have that footer that says - if you’re not intended recipient you should delete immediately. Yet people see it and just copy those emails. No respect for the legal disclaimer. Now they can all be sued for ignoring that legal disclaimer, I suppose they will face justice sooner than all those people in emails.

That footer is legally meaningless.

And the companies adding the footer? Their attack lawyers are assholes trying to scare everybody.

Fuck them.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#127

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bonoboTP wrote: post #106
MarkusQ wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> You can call it whatever you want but people make inferences

This is an incorrect definition of a signal.

I agree that intention is irrelevant. But a powerful person blending in with their dress isn’t actually sending a signal. There is nothing to perceive because they look like everyone else.

The signal is only in if they’re recognized. Your definition of signal is congruous with any trait someone thinks a powerful person has whether it’s real or imagined.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#129

Post by decimalenough »

zephen wrote: post #104
coldtea wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them.

You're conflating actual value with perceived value. It's well established that perceptions matter and people make decisions based on this all the time.

> The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life.

No, it resonates because it's a feel good story. I'm sure it happens, but most of the time signaling is perfectly accurate. If you don't believe me, exchange clothes with a homeless person and try to go shopping on Rodeo Drive.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#130

Post by VerifiedReports »

I don't know where this guy has worked, but I've never worked for anyone who communicates like an ignorant, lazy ass.

Also, while I find his criticism valid for having had indeed seen it, this is ironic: "how sloppy and unprofessional emails from executives looked like."

Post reply on HN