usually when people say they don't mean to be a jerk, they're being a jerk. not intentional.. but the person will think you're a jerk, so it's basically the same effect, just that you'll feel better.
To anyone currently developing scripts to analyse comments on HN, please also consider use of unqualified opinions presented as fact. Statements such as "most", "a lot", "many" and "no one" fall into this category as per [1].
It would be interesting to whether a relationship exists between karma and excessive use of "most", "a lot", etc.
Dude I honestly dream of some real time text parsing that seriously adds value to the quality of the conversation and moment. One of my goals is to make this for CompassionPit but I'd much rather get a killer solution from a 3rd party. I'd definitely pay for it too -- definitely at least $100/month.
Sometimes. I think it shows the person has enough empathy to realize what they're saying could be hurtful. I see it as making a point which isn't meant to be taken personally (and a signal the person is willing to engage in a discussion, not an argument).
That said, it doesn't really apply for statements like "I don't mean to be rude, but you're an <ethnic slur>".
Sometimes it demonstrates that a person is just trying to soften the blow from a rude or insulting statement, but at other times it demonstrates that they hold a complex view which is most clearly explained by describing its limits or contrasting it to other views.
Has happened to me more than once when my comments online have been construed as hostile when I never had the intent. Especially on this medium, where one's face and vocal tone cannot be communicated, I think such disclaimers are necessary (evil?). Also, there is the "Be civil" HN doctrine. So there.
After edit: I recall the brilliant use of "can be shortened to" in this example from the HN Guidelines:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. 'That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'"
Similarly, a comment that begins with "I don't mean to be [X]" can be shortened to making the statement that follows the "but" in that sentence, probably for better rhetorical effect and persuasive power, especially if the statement is actually based on a reliable source mentioned in the comment.
I guess that's what happens when you are relatively new to HN, you miss the blindingly obviousness. (Could also be down to subconscious blindness I guess - It's not often if ever, that you see a search box in the footer).
The fact that there is more text in a comment let's the reader know more explainin' is on the way. No need to point out that you're about to elaborate. Are people worried we'll get to the end of their paragraph and not know if the next paragraph is related?
It makes sense in face-to-face interactions, particularly when addressing are group. Sometimes, if you say something controversial, people will respond dismissively before you've had a chance to justify yourself. "Let me explain" is used as a way to reclaim the floor, so to speak.
For better or worse, people are transferring this pattern to written language as stylistic device.
In any given exchange, the speaker is likely optimizing both honesty and diplomacy, trading one against the other as the situation requires. The phrase "to be honest" signals that the next bit is going to sacrifice an unusually large amount diplomacy for an unusually large amount of honesty. Or something.
It's a verbal flag and a hedging move. "I am about to say something potentially hurtful, but I am doing it with your best interests at heart, so don't instinctively retaliate" is kind of what it's used for. Reading too deeply into the literal meaning of the words doesn't really go anywhere, any more than with other verbal rituals. Compare to the greeting "How's it going?", often used even when the asker doesn't really want to know how it is going.
It's an old rule that whenever someone says "I'm not racist, but", they are practically always about to say something incredibly racist. I think this can be generalized to all forms of "I'm not X, but" or, "I don't mean to be X, but", and so forth. "No offense, but, <offensive thing>" seems to also be a common variation.
Is there a word for this kind of linguistic construct?
I think your analysis is too glib here. [And since PG seems to be implying the same thing, that goes for him too.]
It’s typically a way of expressing anger/displeasure/etc. without turning the comment into a personal insult. If I say “I don’t mean to be rude, but you made a grammatical mistake”, or “I don’t mean to be harsh, but your idea doesn’t make sense” what I mean in the former case is something like “anyone could make that mistake, please don’t take it personally, but I figured you’d like to know”, or in the latter case, “you need to clarify your idea, because you’re losing your audience; I don’t want to imply it doesn’t have any merit, but as currently explained the merit doesn’t shine through”.
Being able to make quick softening caveats without taking up a paragraph is very useful, and our language is more nuanced and powerful for having these constructions.
My problem with this softening caveat is that the speaker acknowledges that he will present his argument in a way that will offend/sound rude/make him look like a jerk. Instead of priming my listener for thinking I'm rude/a jerk/etc. through admitting that I am, I'll just think of another way to gently criticize. Playing to one's emotions is all about being convincing, and "I don't mean to be..." is an unconvincing phrase.
It's a way to convey tone through text. Sometimes the same comment can be taken in either a rude or a helping way, and prefacing it with "I don't mean to be rude" is a way of saying "please take this in the helping way."
When talking in person you can infer this through how they say it, but in anonymous text on the internet the disclaimer is helpful.
I've often found that one is better served by saying "please take this in the helping way" outright as opposed to relying on over-cliche phrases like "I don't mean to be X."
Being earnest and dare I say somewhat unique in your discussions can often produce better results than crutching on over-used phrases. This is a reason I stick to phrases like "I apologize for" over "I'm sorry for", or "I appreciate that" over "Thank you for." When words/phrases you intend to convey become noise or just another figure of speech, why bother saying them at all?
I agree, part of the difficulty comes in when people use such statements not to soften the blow to the people they are communicating to but to soften any negative reaction people are going to inflict on them for a negative or criticizing statement.
It is then easy for some people to read such a statement as "I want to make a rude statement, but not have people treat me as having just said something rude." or even "I want to hurt you, but not have people hurt me in response."
The nature of text only communication with long turn around time means it is often for some to tell in between the two situations above. This is especially so for anyone who goes out of there way to blur the lines between the two.
I'd argue that "I don't mean to X ..." has actually fallen victim to the euphemism treadmill ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill ). It can still be used earnestly for its original meaning, but that usage has been overtaken by the usage where someone essentially says "I'm not racist but - " and then proceeds to make a racist remark. This leads to the situation that your parent comment points out.
Language, of course, varies, and we should keep in mind that some uses tend to crowd out others - but I definitely think that this is something like the euphemism treadmill at work.
I think it's also a victim of political correctness, which is closely related to heavy use of euphemisms. In many places these days, it's pretty difficult to make certain kinds of observations or relate certain kinds of anecdotes without somebody taking offense. "I once had an African-American roommate in college and he was..." "You racist!""I met this crazy girl the other day and..." "You sexist!" No wonder people feel like they need to qualify their statements.
Why do you explicitly point out race or gender? You don’t have to, you know. It’s kinda irrelevant most of the time. (And if you think it isn’t when you are telling some harmless anecdote it’s possible you might be racist or sexist.)
I do mention that all the time, because it's simply part of the story, and that is how I tell stories, with all kinds of (potentially meaningless) details. If people think I am sexist or racist because I mentioned that a "black girl pulled out a knife", then so be it.
That's a valid question, but it's just as applicable to any incidental details. I imagine other details like when or where you met the person are equally irrelevant, and yet including them is completely reasonable.
Why do I care that he was your high school friend?
I don't mean to be rude, just saying - people use such descriptions intuitively (because it makes the story flow better), and it's not always because they are prjudiced towards some group of people.
That he is a friend from high school tells you about his relationship with me. It answers the question, "Why do you, carbocation, care what this person thinks?"
Note that I didn't tell you about his skin color, the color of his hair, or anything else that wasn't actually relevant. Prejudice is a tough nut to crack and is not the same thing as bigotry.
In that case, you could just tell me he was your friend, not high-school friend. Or better yet - "Person I care about ...". If being too specific was bad.
Anyway - I don't see what this has to do with prejudice or bigotry. People add details to stories, because that makes stories better (at least in the opinion of the people that tell these stories).
I live in Poland, there are very few people other than white here (like, I've met black people maybe 10 times in my life), and when someone tells a story, nobody mentions race (because it's assumed to be white), but people tell "So this big bald guy says ...", or "And that gray old lady did ...". That's just how people tell stories. Is this prejudice, too?
And if I met black person and something interesting happened, I'd tell in my story, that this person was black, because I'd certainly remember that as a distinguishing characteristic, exactly like being big bald guy, or being grey old lady. Or I could skip "gray", because "gray" is the default visualization for old ladies.
You wouldn't say, "a two armed person pulled a knife on me!" because two arms is the norm, outside of, perhaps, prosthetic clinics. So, I assume that "black" and "girl" are perceived as exceptional enough by the speaker to warrant mention.
Personally, I'm more concerned with the tone and context. My extended family insists they aren't racist, despite spitting out the word 'black' as if it were stinging their tongue. Also, they like to casually mentioning how much they dislike the "beady yellow eyes" of Indians (maybe), and integrate the n-word regularly into their humor.
People don't usually acknowledge it themselves, but that's how oral narration works - it has to keep the listener's interest and relate to them, be it either an anecdote or something that happened to one yesterday. Compare someone asking for accept ("permission" for telling the story): 'Hey, know what tall black guy living next to me? [audience reaction] So, yesterday we went to...' vs 'At a certain time, I went with this person to...' (you can add M. and N., if you want - like in Chekhov novels) The other version lacks any way to relate to listener(s) and would feel pretty dry.
Personally, I just want to be able to accurately picture what happened. If I later find out that some character in a story has a different appearance from what I imagined, there's a weird adjustment.
Somewhat related to this subject of the link between concepts and words/phrases, the utility of clichés, etc., I strongly recommend Douglas Hofstadter’s lecture, “Analogy as the Core of Cognition”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8m7lFQ3njk
Etymologically the word obvious comes from ob + via, in other words something blocking the path (to understanding). But in modern usage it's of course used to mean the opposite, something that's trivially easy to see. Though ironically most propositions prefaced by 'obviously' are anything but.
Anyway, if no such word exists, I'd propose propose calling them obvianyms, after what is perhaps the best-known example of the phenomenon. Plus, the fact that the term is actually an anti-cognate adds a third layer of irony, which is kind of cool in and of itself.
the word obvious comes from ob + via, in other words something blocking the path (to understanding)
Are you sure it meant blocking understanding? I thought it was more like "in front of you", as in "you can't miss it".
According to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=obvious, the original meaning was "commonplace", i.e. something you're likely to encounter along the way, and the modern meaning "evident" doesn't appear until the 1630s.
It does explain how obvious and obviate got to mean conflicting things.
It's pretty cool when a word evolves into its opposite meaning, but I can't remember any right now, other than slang examples like "wicked" and "sick" which don't get to count.
invaluable? I suppose the etymology may be that something invaluable is so important that any value ascribed to it still does not approximate its true worth.
That is interesting. Something I've noticed is that if you believe that words should be defined in such a way that they are logically consistent with other words, it's possible that there are words that literally everyone uses incorrectly. And under this paradigm, there are many words that mean the opposite of what they 'should' mean. As far as I know though I'm the only one who believes this, although it wouldn't surprise me if other people have explored the idea before.
For enantiodromes, I recommend 'anathema', which was once a thing devoted to the gods but came to mean accursed, and 'cleave' which still occasionally means 'adhere to' but more commonly means 'to split'.
It's interesting (and frustrating) when this phenomenon appears across different languages. The French 'pas terrible' means not very good rather than not terrible.
I think it's just an acknowledgement of the ambiguity of tone in the written word and of the tendency of people to always take away the most offensive interpretation of the comment.
Some people use it as a preface to cushion their unfiltered invective, but it's in everyone's interest to give people the benefit of the doubt in recognition of the ambiguity in what we say.
Paralipsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralipsis), or parasiopesis or præteritio as it was called when I was in school, means something very like what you describe.
There was a great line in the old TV show Pretender along the lines of "It's my observation that anybody who begins a sentence "with all due respect" typically doesn't have it"
I've always interpreted prefaces like that (along with its relatives "with all due respect" or the suffix "I'm just saying") as a way of turning the sentence into "This is an objective observation that should be made; don't blame the messenger". Used well it's a good way to strip subjectivity from some objective facts, used poorly it's a good way to project a subjective interpretation onto objective facts.
I vaguely recall something from some sociology/linguistics/critical-reasoning thing I read once, but cannot recall the context or if there was a name given to it.
It was discussed as a subconscious (sometimes) way to shift blame away from the speaker as an attempt to not violate (or lessen the violation of) some social norm.
Almost seems like a cross between hedging and an assurance expression ("Everyone knows that..." or "Any seasoned developer would....").
Why do you have to assume that? Can't it just be that PG was talking to someone, this came up, he wondered what the results would be, did the search, and thought it was interesting enough to share? You know, like any hacker probably would?
I don't see anything wrong with this. There are a lot of posts on HN are looking for feedback, and criticism can very easily be mistaken for aggressiveness. Sure rudeness is rudeness but prepending "I don't mean to be..." in front of your sentences don't make it so.
I used to start sentences with "No offense, but..." when I felt I was going to say something controversial until a coworker pointed out that the only reason what I was saying was controversial was because I prefaced it with "No offense, but...".
So now I don't say that anymore. I just say what I mean and people aren't as likely to be offended.
140 comments
[ 0.90 ms ] story [ 250 ms ] thread1. Rude
2. Pedantic
3. Snarky
4. Negative
5. An ass
6. A downer
7. A jerk
I'd love for someone to actually analyze the results and get the numbers, though.
It would be interesting to whether a relationship exists between karma and excessive use of "most", "a lot", etc.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
;)
B) It's art. It prods you into realizing new stuff about yourself and the world around you. Start realizing.
That said, it doesn't really apply for statements like "I don't mean to be rude, but you're an <ethnic slur>".
The proper response to most of these statements is, of course, "So don't."
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/comments&q=%22cit...
After edit: I recall the brilliant use of "can be shortened to" in this example from the HN Guidelines:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. 'That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'"
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Similarly, a comment that begins with "I don't mean to be [X]" can be shortened to making the statement that follows the "but" in that sentence, probably for better rhetorical effect and persuasive power, especially if the statement is actually based on a reliable source mentioned in the comment.
Interesting take on linguistic analysis.
(Features pedantry and inexplicably purple microbes.)
One of my pet peeves...are you usually not honest with me?
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22to+be+ho...
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22let+me+e...
The fact that there is more text in a comment let's the reader know more explainin' is on the way. No need to point out that you're about to elaborate. Are people worried we'll get to the end of their paragraph and not know if the next paragraph is related?
For better or worse, people are transferring this pattern to written language as stylistic device.
To the extent that people usually politely self-censor, yes, they're usually not being honest with you.
It's a verbal flag and a hedging move. "I am about to say something potentially hurtful, but I am doing it with your best interests at heart, so don't instinctively retaliate" is kind of what it's used for. Reading too deeply into the literal meaning of the words doesn't really go anywhere, any more than with other verbal rituals. Compare to the greeting "How's it going?", often used even when the asker doesn't really want to know how it is going.
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22to+be+th...
Is there a word for this kind of linguistic construct?
( Possibly related: http://www.notracistbut.com/ )
It’s typically a way of expressing anger/displeasure/etc. without turning the comment into a personal insult. If I say “I don’t mean to be rude, but you made a grammatical mistake”, or “I don’t mean to be harsh, but your idea doesn’t make sense” what I mean in the former case is something like “anyone could make that mistake, please don’t take it personally, but I figured you’d like to know”, or in the latter case, “you need to clarify your idea, because you’re losing your audience; I don’t want to imply it doesn’t have any merit, but as currently explained the merit doesn’t shine through”.
Being able to make quick softening caveats without taking up a paragraph is very useful, and our language is more nuanced and powerful for having these constructions.
When talking in person you can infer this through how they say it, but in anonymous text on the internet the disclaimer is helpful.
Being earnest and dare I say somewhat unique in your discussions can often produce better results than crutching on over-used phrases. This is a reason I stick to phrases like "I apologize for" over "I'm sorry for", or "I appreciate that" over "Thank you for." When words/phrases you intend to convey become noise or just another figure of speech, why bother saying them at all?
It is then easy for some people to read such a statement as "I want to make a rude statement, but not have people treat me as having just said something rude." or even "I want to hurt you, but not have people hurt me in response."
The nature of text only communication with long turn around time means it is often for some to tell in between the two situations above. This is especially so for anyone who goes out of there way to blur the lines between the two.
Language, of course, varies, and we should keep in mind that some uses tend to crowd out others - but I definitely think that this is something like the euphemism treadmill at work.
It was nearly always totally irrelevant.
I don't mean to be rude, just saying - people use such descriptions intuitively (because it makes the story flow better), and it's not always because they are prjudiced towards some group of people.
Note that I didn't tell you about his skin color, the color of his hair, or anything else that wasn't actually relevant. Prejudice is a tough nut to crack and is not the same thing as bigotry.
Anyway - I don't see what this has to do with prejudice or bigotry. People add details to stories, because that makes stories better (at least in the opinion of the people that tell these stories).
I live in Poland, there are very few people other than white here (like, I've met black people maybe 10 times in my life), and when someone tells a story, nobody mentions race (because it's assumed to be white), but people tell "So this big bald guy says ...", or "And that gray old lady did ...". That's just how people tell stories. Is this prejudice, too?
And if I met black person and something interesting happened, I'd tell in my story, that this person was black, because I'd certainly remember that as a distinguishing characteristic, exactly like being big bald guy, or being grey old lady. Or I could skip "gray", because "gray" is the default visualization for old ladies.
Personally, I'm more concerned with the tone and context. My extended family insists they aren't racist, despite spitting out the word 'black' as if it were stinging their tongue. Also, they like to casually mentioning how much they dislike the "beady yellow eyes" of Indians (maybe), and integrate the n-word regularly into their humor.
It happens to me, too, but I at least know that it’s racist.
Anyway, if no such word exists, I'd propose propose calling them obvianyms, after what is perhaps the best-known example of the phenomenon. Plus, the fact that the term is actually an anti-cognate adds a third layer of irony, which is kind of cool in and of itself.
Are you sure it meant blocking understanding? I thought it was more like "in front of you", as in "you can't miss it".
According to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=obvious, the original meaning was "commonplace", i.e. something you're likely to encounter along the way, and the modern meaning "evident" doesn't appear until the 1630s.
It's pretty cool when a word evolves into its opposite meaning, but I can't remember any right now, other than slang examples like "wicked" and "sick" which don't get to count.
It's interesting (and frustrating) when this phenomenon appears across different languages. The French 'pas terrible' means not very good rather than not terrible.
Some people use it as a preface to cushion their unfiltered invective, but it's in everyone's interest to give people the benefit of the doubt in recognition of the ambiguity in what we say.
I've always interpreted prefaces like that (along with its relatives "with all due respect" or the suffix "I'm just saying") as a way of turning the sentence into "This is an objective observation that should be made; don't blame the messenger". Used well it's a good way to strip subjectivity from some objective facts, used poorly it's a good way to project a subjective interpretation onto objective facts.
not that it invalidates your point, but does provide a credible reason to preface something with "i don't mean to be..."
It was discussed as a subconscious (sometimes) way to shift blame away from the speaker as an attempt to not violate (or lessen the violation of) some social norm.
Almost seems like a cross between hedging and an assurance expression ("Everyone knows that..." or "Any seasoned developer would....").
Wish I could remember more. :/
So now I don't say that anymore. I just say what I mean and people aren't as likely to be offended.
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=sheeple&...
Gosh, this is a terrific resource. It's almost as much fun as Google's Usenet archive, back when it actually used to work.