Minor things that bother you

[Big John]

Getting numerous clickbait feeds with different stores saying: All _______ stores announced they will be closing for 24 hours in April.

Of course for Easter Sunday.

[DTComposer]

For the last few years, the W-4 and W-9 forms have the fields for the employee's Social Security number placed in such a way that about 40% of my hires (who are filling out the form by hand) miss it and I have to follow up to get a completed form.

But, if they fill the form out on their computer as a pdf, they neglect to fill out the date and signature (which are not pdf form fields).

[wxfree]

Censorship

I've never really complained about censorship in terms of foul language, because I mainly wish people would be more deliberative with their language.  I don't wish for a world in which people just say whatever the fuck they want and pass around every word freely.  My use of the dirty word is intentional and has a meaning behind it that other words can't replace.  I don't use such words freely because I believe that usually there are better words.  I don't want to eliminate "bad" words, but I wish for more use of better words.

The bleeping, or silencing, of words has gotten ridiculous in some online platforms.  You can't say "drugs," even when referring to the most boring pharmaceuticals, such as cholesterol and blood pressure pills.  You can't say "sex" even when referring to the physical construction of a baby.  Gender is not the same thing.  You can say "seggs" even though it isn't a word and I'm not certain what it means.

I really don't like the evolution of language, but as I get older I'm learning to appreciate it.  I'm aging in reverse.  I was more conservative when I was young because I didn't know enough to challenge the status quo and I'm getting more liberal as I get older and realize how stupid things are and how much they need to change.  As I become a crotchety elder I want something better and more enlightening, not to go back to my youth, to things that were stupid then and would be even stupider now.  I'm no longer inclined to dislike something just because it's new, but some changes I don't like.  We've learned to live with silent letters, but silent words I think are over the line.  Making up new words that mean the same thing as old words because those old words have a meaning some people don't want to talk about, that's even more stupid than what we did in olden times.  It has the same meaning, it means the same thing.  Making it sound different changes nothing.  What are they trying to accomplish?

[kphoger]

Making up new words that mean the same thing as old words because those old words have a meaning some people don't want to talk about, that's even more stupid than what we did in olden times.  It has the same meaning, it means the same thing.  Making it sound different changes nothing.  What are they trying to accomplish?

Euphemisms have existed since ancient times, and their whole purpose is to mean the same or similar thing as whatever more offensive word or phrase they replace.

Of course, you're talking about something slightly different.  But I just wanted to point out that talking about offensive things with inoffensive language is simply part of how humans have communicated for time out of mind.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I don't like when the words that people use to get around censors on one platform start being used elsewhere. Like the ever increasing "unalived" being used on platforms that don't censor "killed" or "murdered" or other death terms like that one particular one does.

[wxfree]

I don't like when the words that people use to get around censors on one platform start being used elsewhere. Like the ever increasing "unalived" being used on platforms that don't censor "killed" or "murdered" or other death terms like that one particular one does.

That term bothers me, too.  They're making up unneeded words that are soggy in their meaning.  Some words need their intensity because their meanings are strong.

I don't like the new phrase "took his own life."  To me, it's more accurate to say that he gave his life back.  He already had it and didn't want it.  I also never liked the term "committed suicide," because it focuses on the intent in a strange way.  To me, to focus on the commission of the act rather than the act itself is more legalistic and judgemental than descriptive.  We don't even say that murderer, someone worthy of judgement, committed murder.  We say he killed someone, or murdered someone.  To say he committed murder is useful in a legal context, but it's a strange thing to say in normal conversation (using a multiple ['he committed three murders'] is different, as it emphasizes a number rather than the commission).  I would use the term "killed himself" to describe the act.  I get that the old way of saying it is flawed, but to me the new way isn't better.  The way you mentioned is just stupid.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I also never liked the term "committed suicide," because it focuses on the intent in a strange way.

Heh, that reminds me of a tangential story. Someone didn't like that I used "committed suicide" once and gave me the "the reasons should be obvious, no?" when addressing me about it. I hate when people want you to modify your behavior for non-obvious reasons and put the burden on you for not knowing better.  The popular replacement phrase "died by suicide" sounds clunky to me so I just go with "killed themselves"

[Scott5114]

I don't like the new phrase "took his own life."  To me, it's more accurate to say that he gave his life back.  He already had it and didn't want it.  I also never liked the term "committed suicide," because it focuses on the intent in a strange way.  To me, to focus on the commission of the act rather than the act itself is more legalistic and judgemental than descriptive.  We don't even say that murderer, someone worthy of judgement, committed murder.  We say he killed someone, or murdered someone.  To say he committed murder is useful in a legal context, but it's a strange thing to say in normal conversation (using a multiple ['he committed three murders'] is different, as it emphasizes a number rather than the commission).  I would use the term "killed himself" to describe the act.  I get that the old way of saying it is flawed, but to me the new way isn't better.  The way you mentioned is just stupid.

My wife introduced me to the phrase "died by suicide", and I think that it's probably the best way to describe it, considering it has none of the problems you point out with the other phrases meaning the same thing. I don't think it's particularly clunky—at least not any more clunky than "died in a car accident" or "died from natural causes".

I agree with your larger point that the censoring of commonplace words with perhaps negative meanings is incredibly short-sighted. I would never use a platform that had such a policy. (Yes, we do have a word filter on this forum, but 1) it mostly filters words like racial slurs there's no good reason to use, 2) it doesn't prevent you from posting them, it just changes them to something silly, and 3) if it really bothers you you can turn it off altogether and see the original text).

[Max Rockatansky]

I prefer the forum censorship that went into Sault Sainte John Madden.  I would go as far as to say the end product has become engrained in forum lore. 

[Scott5114]

I'm not sure what you'd call that, but I don't know that censorship is the right word.

[formulanone]

I don't like when the words that people use to get around censors on one platform start being used elsewhere. Like the ever increasing "unalived" being used on platforms that don't censor "killed" or "murdered" or other death terms like that one particular one does.

That term bothers me, too.  They're making up unneeded words that are soggy in their meaning.  Some words need their intensity because their meanings are strong.

It does sound euphemistic, but I suppose it also emphasizes; the words "dead" and "died" have been heavily and un-creatively overused to describe many different situations in which something ranging from grand to trivial, has ceased to be useful, has lost momentum, or is not functioning.

[kphoger]

I don't like the new phrase "took his own life."

Who takes his own life, merits not my pen.

New?  The phrase has been attested in English literature for 356 years and counting.

I also never liked the term "committed suicide," because it focuses on the intent in a strange way.  To me, to focus on the commission of the act rather than the act itself is more legalistic and judgemental than descriptive.  We don't even say that murderer, someone worthy of judgement, committed murder.  We say he killed someone, or murdered someone.  To say he committed murder is useful in a legal context, but it's a strange thing to say in normal conversation (using a multiple ['he committed three murders'] is different, as it emphasizes a number rather than the commission).  I would use the term "killed himself" to describe the act.  I get that the old way of saying it is flawed, but to me the new way isn't better.  The way you mentioned is just stupid.

To me, the phrase 'committed suicide' is the old way of saying it.  I've recently started hearing the phrase 'died of suicide', as if the person contracted the suicide disease or as if the death were an accident.

I also don't really understand what you're saying about the word 'commit' focusing on the intent rather than merely the act.  To me, that's not the connotation.  The word 'commit' has simply meant the act of doing something—especially a crime—for centuries.  Its first attestation in English, from the 1400s, is long predated by the same use of committere in Latin (see meaning #2 here and meaning #4 here).  You simply commit an act.  It means that you did it.  Nothing more.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not sure what you'd call that, but I don't know that censorship is the right word.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it put in place to prevent a certain Arctic Island Gulag enthusiast from constantly name dropping someone outside the forum?  That sounds like censorship to me.  All I'm saying is that it had intentionally hilarious results.

[wxfree]

I don't like the new phrase "took his own life."

Who takes his own life, merits not my pen.

New?  The phrase has been attested in English literature for 356 years and counting.

What I'm referring to is how the media describes such incidents.  I read something a few years ago about the change in terminology in one organization, and now it seems to be common.  I liked that they were changing it, but I disliked what they changed it to.

I also never liked the term "committed suicide," because it focuses on the intent in a strange way.  To me, to focus on the commission of the act rather than the act itself is more legalistic and judgemental than descriptive.  We don't even say that murderer, someone worthy of judgement, committed murder.  We say he killed someone, or murdered someone.  To say he committed murder is useful in a legal context, but it's a strange thing to say in normal conversation (using a multiple ['he committed three murders'] is different, as it emphasizes a number rather than the commission).  I would use the term "killed himself" to describe the act.  I get that the old way of saying it is flawed, but to me the new way isn't better.  The way you mentioned is just stupid.

To me, the phrase 'committed suicide' is the old way of saying it.  I've recently started hearing the phrase 'died of suicide', as if the person contracted the suicide disease or as if the death were an accident.

I also don't really understand what you're saying about the word 'commit' focusing on the intent rather than merely the act.  To me, that's not the connotation.  The word 'commit' has simply meant the act of doing something—especially a crime—for centuries.  Its first attestation in English, from the 1400s, is long predated by the same use of committere in Latin (see meaning #2 here and meaning #4 here).  You simply commit an act.  It means that you did it.  Nothing more.

I'm glad you asked this (I'm not a politician, I'm telling the truth).  I didn't have an exact meaning in mind.  I don't usually post something when I don't know exactly what it's intended to mean.  I pondered it for a while and didn't come up with it.  I suppose I was curious about whether anyone would ask.

I don't remember how the article I read described the reason for the change in wording, but it was similar to my own objection.  What's the difference between saying I stole something and saying I committed theft.  In reality, nothing, but the wordings give different senses.

I have a diagnosis for depression, or whatever the current clinical term for it is.  My grandmother had diabetes.  She said "I am diabetic."  If I had diabetes, I would say "I have diabetes."  To say "I am..." makes it part of your identity as opposed to describing a thing about you.  My diagnosis is different.  Some conditions affect who you are, or who you understand yourself to be.  In a sense, it becomes a part of your identity.  I don't say "I am depressed," because most people will think that means I'm sad in that moment.  That isn't what depression is.  But to say it that way, to me, is the most accurate wording.  Depression isn't something I have, it's something about who I am.

That's unrelated, but it gets to how I think of these words.  To say "I stole a thing" presents a fact.  To say "I am a thief" may mean the same thing, but it presents the idea in a different way.  It speaks to my identity and possibly my nature.  To say "I committed theft" is to focus not on the intent, as I worded things earlier, but on the doing of the act, the commission.  In my hearing, that's more like applying a label, like saying that I'm the kind of person who steals.  That's where my poorly-worded idea of intent came from.  Emphasizing the doing reduces the sense of finality.  It's like changing "I stole a thing" in the past tense to "I steal," which is more a statement of my character.  I put a lot of thought into the meaning of words (which is why I like neither the free use of foul language nor censorship), but I don't know how to describe this better.  To me, the "committed" wording inflicts more guilt and stigma by applying a label, something that isn't needed in the midst of a mental health crisis.

The phrase "died by suicide" is probably the best one.  My preference for "killed himself" is in part due to my funny relationship with the idea of suicide.  If I were to do it, that's the description I would want used because it says it just the right way, from my perspective and in that one case.  It may not be the best wording in other situations.

[vdeane]

Chapters is online works of fiction (web serials, fanfic, etc.) that are really, really long.  Without natural break points to bookmark, you're pretty much forced to read a long glob of text if you want to have somewhere you can save your progress.  I actually dropped an online serial (and am considering dropping another) and have avoided reading certain fanfics over this; it just makes things too much of a chore to read, since finding large enough chunks of time to read such big chapters is not easy and it messes with how I keep track of things.

This is less of a problem in physical books since bookmarks are a thing, but I still prefer to stop at chapter breaks whenever I can even then.

I don't like the new phrase "took his own life."

"Took his own life" doesn't strike me as particularly new.  I'm pretty sure the phrase kids these days are using is "unalived himself".

[bugo]

Have you ever had the sort of morning where you just feel generally down about things but you have no idea why and you can't really think of anything that should be depressing you? That's how I feel today.

I feel like that every single day.

[hotdogPi]

Not all the terms above are synonymous. It's possible to kill yourself without committing suicide, such as a machinery accident.

[kernals12]

People seemingly forgetting the wide variety of EVs available that aren't made by Elon Musk.

[Max Rockatansky]

I haven't forgotten about the wide assortment of uncompetitively priced EVs.  The saga of the new Charger and the return the Hemi V8 has been something I've been following closely.

[kphoger]

What's the difference between saying I stole something and saying I committed theft.

The former focuses on the act, the latter on the fact that the act was a crime.

[hotdogPi]

I could possibly see a difference in cases where stealing something is not a crime, such as wartime after defeating the enemy, civil asset forfeiture (where the police are the ones doing the stealing), and other cases I might not be thinking of right now.

[SEWIGuy]

I could possibly see a difference in cases where stealing something is not a crime, such as wartime after defeating the enemy, civil asset forfeiture (where the police are the ones doing the stealing), and other cases I might not be thinking of right now.

The bolded is certainly illegal, at least in terms of the United States. It has been widely ignored however.

And civil asset forfeiture should DEFINITELY be illegal.

[kphoger]

Saying that my wife stole our son's leftovers from the fridge late last night isn't the same thing as saying she committed a theft.  The former merely focuses on the act, whereas the latter implies a crime.

[JayhawkCO]

Similarly, if I'm watching TV, get up to get a beer, and the cat jumps up and sits where I was sitting, he stole my seat, but certainly didn't commit grand larceny.

[thenetwork]

Stealing bases in baseball is okay...unless you take the base from the field...