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

281–290 of 292 posts

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#281

Post by gsck »

I kinda went through this when I joined my current employer. My boss's emails were (are) at worst unintelligible and best hard to follow, weirdly formatted and generally hard to grok. Usually they are just blocks of text that are one big garden path sentance. But it all magically goes away in client communications

Not sure why this is, but it never really bothered me. It took me a while to learn my boss's interpretation of the English language. I don't think its a case of being in a position where it doesn't matter, other department heads don't do this, I reckon its just down to necessity.

You aren't trying to portray an image of yourself to your team, you don't need to come across as a poet laureate for internal discussions.

If you are trying to craft an image of yourself to your team instead of doing your job well and letting your work build your image you are doing something wrong

Spend your time wisely, put effort into your emails where it matters, format everything nicely, double/triple check your grammar, but among colleagues you don't need to pretend

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#282

Post by asveikau »

NoGravitas wrote: post #276
asveikau wrote: post #142

Many people point to the bad spelling and grammar of these powerful, abusive people and they say wow, that's a flex. My own reaction is more like these people are stupid . It's not power that makes them write poorly. They're not capable of getting it right. Look at what Noam Chomsky wrote to Epstein as a contrast. Multiple paragraphs and usually coherent. He makes Epstein look dumb. (Which he was.) I don't support wh…

The thing is that "being an idiot" would have consequences for you; it doesn't have consequences for them.

This isn't black and white. Tons of people face little or no consequences for being idiots, but don't achieve the levels that Epstein did.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#283

Post by daine »

It is my feeling that some of the conspicuous behaviors of people in positions of influence and monetary wealth do, in fact, rob the practitioner of the small joys of life won through small sacrifice. I do not envy the man who gains hedonic leisure at the expense of the opportunity to elevate a mundane message into a medium for a modicum of joy, and potential human connection. I love tending my garden, and trimming the weeds in our sidewalk.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#284

Post by otterley »

AbstractH24 wrote: post #270
otterley wrote: post #31

What I've seen is that leaders often communicate brusquely downward, but formally upward - and the higher the rank, the greater the magnitude (in each direction). I think it's a consequence of having more and more people asking you things (on the downward side), while being responsible for decisions of more critical importance (on the upward side) as you go further up the chain of command.

What makes you think its just "leaders"?

This response isn’t very helpful. Can you elaborate with your own experience?

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#285

Post by tempodox »

The conspiracy theories about power signalling in the other comments are all well and good, but I have a simpler theory: U.S.-ians don’t know their own language, plain and simple. There’s a reason that American English is referred to as “English, Simplified”. The U.S. is a culture of barbarism, and language is one of the more conspicuous areas where it shows. I’d suggest that those who still know grammar and orthography are less victims of a power imbalance than just better educated. Or maybe their tastes aren’t as badly ruined yet.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#286

Post by MarkusQ »

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 isn't about what it's called, it's about who's doing it. If people make inferences, that's something being done by the people making the inference, not by the people they are making the inferences about.

This is a pretty fundamental point, and grasping it is essential to having healthy interactions with others.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#287

Post by jvandreae »

jiggawatts wrote: post #260
StevenWaterman wrote: post #4

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

I’ve seen an fascinating paper (sorry, lost the url) that expanded on this using game theory: it’s common for “economic stratification” to have on the order of ten to fifteen levels, from abject poverty up to hundred-billionaires. Look at it this way: there are five orders of magnitude between a “mere” ten-millionaire and the likes of Elon or Bezos! To most people that’s the “same” level of rich, but each factor of t…

I believe this is touched upon in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#288

Post by saghm »

WalterBright wrote: post #242
saghm wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I got married, my spouse and I told people to wear whatever they wanted because we didn't really care. I also never cared at all about what we were wearing on our dates because what I enjoy about spending time with people is not seeing them present themselves in a way that I tell them to. I would go to a restaurant in sweats if I were allowed to. I fundamentally do not understand what reason everyone else should…

It's a free country and you can dress as you please. But people will judge you by how you dress, and you will miss opportunities as a result, and you'll never know that this is happening. As I mentioned earlier, people do react to me differently depending on how I dress. And I've known many people who align with your views on this, and they've all wondered why opportunity passed them by (or they realized they needed…

I still don't get how you start with "people will judge you by how you dress" and arrive at "airlines should refuse customers who don't dress the way I expect someone would at a trial, wedding, or real estate sale".

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#289

Post by WalterBright »

saghm wrote: post #288
WalterBright wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a free country and you can dress as you please. But people will judge you by how you dress, and you will miss opportunities as a result, and you'll never know that this is happening. As I mentioned earlier, people do react to me differently depending on how I dress. And I've known many people who align with your views on this, and they've all wondered why opportunity passed them by (or they realized they needed…

I still don't get how you start with "people will judge you by how you dress" and arrive at "airlines should refuse customers who don't dress the way I expect someone would at a trial, wedding, or real estate sale".

An airliner is an exquisitely designed work of engineering, staffed by highly trained professionals.

It's not a bus.

Re: Privilege is bad grammar

#290

Post by tanjtanjtanj »

mh2266 wrote: post #120
StevenWaterman wrote: post #4

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

“Ratty old” and “formal” are not the only options. I dress mostly in techwear brands like Veilance, Outlier, and ACRNM, which is not ratty and old but is also very much not formal or uncomfortable.

I don’t think parent implied that that are the only options, they just gave examples that can fit into categories.

Did you mean to add where your expensive polyester blend clothing lands on the spectrum they were illustrating?

Post reply on HN