31–40 of 58 posts
"Doge" is even more childish and cancerous than ragecomics. In 2 years most of us will try to forget how popular it once was.
Still don't understand if it's supposed to be pronounced as dog, doggie, dougue. But perhaps that's the point? Either way I've had quite enough of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still don't understand if it's supposed to be pronounced as dog, doggie, dougue. But perhaps that's the point? Either way I've had quite enough of it.
If it helps, the English IPA for "doge" would be /doʊʒ/; if you need a key, Wikipedia has a good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English
TL;DR write all the words! much slang makes doge happy. disregard old farts' style. acquire upvotes, much happiness achieved!
----------------
I, for one, love good longform journalism (e.g longform.org) and appreciate the consistent usage of SWE. I'm not convinced the OP article's claim that SWE can make a commenter seem less trustworthy to other users on sites like reddit. The links to popular comments in r/bestof and r/DepthHub are almost always written in SWE.
[1](http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/Politics_and_the_English_...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why I'm not taking anybody serious using that meme. Using it is saying "look at me, I am retarded".
The intentional breaking of form takes more mental effort than just writing normally. Good slam on the mentally handicapped, though. Good for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a piece in favor of writing however you want to because CSWE is hard to express yourself in. It's not really in favor of meme-inspired vernacular ("a horrific mess") but maybe it's still better than constraining ourselves to formal English. I'm not sure I agree with the part about people being mistrusted just because they speak that way though.
CSWE is hard to express yourself in This claim baffles and infuriates me.
(In case anyone cares, I keep putting "self-expression" in quotes because all use of language is to some degree "self-expression", which makes the phrase so sloppy in meaning as to be essentially useless, save, I think, for purposes of self-aggrandizement; there seems some inherent presumption that placing something in the category of "self-expression" renders it immune to criticism, which even if true confers no more nobility upon the subject than that afforded to the finger paintings a youngster might bring home from kindergarten.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it helps, the English IPA for "doge" would be /doʊʒ/; if you need a key, Wikipedia has a good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English
That's correct for dealing with the Doge of Venice, but there are many words in English that have multiple pronunciations depending on their individual meaning. In this canine context you really have to start from 'dog.'
Besides, if you start from /dɔːg/, you more or less invariably end up at /dɔːgə/ or /doʊgə/, both of which are so ugly to speak and to hear that arguing against them seems worthwhile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is why I'm not taking anybody serious using that meme. Using it is saying "look at me, I am retarded".
The intentional breaking of form takes more mental effort than just writing normally. Good slam on the mentally handicapped, though. Good for you.
Perhaps you confuse intentional subversion of form with arrant ignorance of same. Judging from my occasional trawls through the reeking open sewer that is 4chan, I'd call the latter plausible, at the very least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you make the same argument for programming languages? Should anyone feel free to code in whatever "vernacular" style he please, because living up to a defined standard makes it "hard to express [one]self"? No doubt someone will attempt the argument that there is a qualitative difference between a language in which one speaks to a computer, and that in which one speaks to other people, but in this case I contend…
If you're writing authoritative, reference-style code, then formal standards may be appropriate. If you're part of a huge project, writing code that is readable by everyone else on the project is simply a pragmatic thing to do. But standards can go too far even in those cases. I once worked on a project where we weren't allowed to depend on order of operations for math operators - we had to put parentheses everywhere…
This assumption strikes me as highly questionable; if anything, lack of standards and disregard for precision in one's effort seems likely to make accurately saying what one means more difficult, rather than less so.