1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

The problem is not with the nonspecific suggestion that people speak clearly. The problem is with the notion that "clearly" is synonymous with "this particular educated white upperclass standard".

If two friends are speaking AAVE and you can't understand them, it isn't because they're speaking unclearly, it's because they're speaking a dialect you don't know. In all likelihood they are perfectly able to code-switch into a dialect you understand, but are not doing so because they aren't talking to you.

(Another thing pedants seem unable to comprehend is that they are not always part of the intended audience of every utterance ever. It's the same self-centered attitude that leads racists to yell at people for having personal conversations in not-English.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25707
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:55 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:Isn't it obvious? I'll fukkin' cut you if you insult my hat.


godsdamnit, its a TRILBY, not a FEDORA!

posers.

You wish you were on my level
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Apeiron
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Apeiron » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:57 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
sotanaht wrote:So apparently the ability to speak and write at a (public) high school level is indicative of race or social class.

Yes, we've now graduated from "anybody who cares about spelling/grammar is just a dirty prescriptivist!" to "anybody who cares about spelling/grammar is a closet racist!" Fuck off, Randall.


Word.

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Netreker0 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

operagost wrote:
jules.LT wrote:
cellocgw wrote:I would hope, for Randall's sake and the sake of our respect for him,
that he's referring to that subdivision of the Grammar Police who jump on errors used in casual speech.

I'll assume that those are the only ones he's actually calling "Grammar Police"

I wouldn't. After all, with this racism/classism angle, that implies a zero-tolerance policy.


Why do you believe this?

It is an unsupported dogma that anything to do with racism needs to be stamped out of existence by any means necessary. I mainly see this dogma espoused by 3 general groups of people.
1) The extreme "meaniehead" type who for whatever reason wants to fight the "racism is bad" fight, but hasn't thought too deeply about why racism is bad.
2) Certain self-styled "anti-SJWs" (and the occasional avowed racist), and probably more than a few simple-minded folks without any position on that particular issue, who sincerely believe/fear that arguing that certain attitudes or actions are unhealthy or unhelpful means arguing that they should be illegal.
3) People generally like those in category 2, except they don't actually subscribe to this belief, and they know very well that not all of the people who disagree with them do either, but they deliberately present this dogma anyway as a strawman argument to try to silence or discredit others.

Whatever you think complex issues. In other words, he's more than capable of looking at an issue and expressing the opinion that "A is bad, but to try to force people to stop doing A would be just as bad."

I wonder if you are also confused about how zero-tolerance works. It means that there will be zero leniency granted to people who violate a certain rule. It does not mean that the scope of the rule will be expanded to encompass all related behavior. For example, mandatory minimum sentencing is essentially a zero tolerance policy on murder. It does not, however, proscribe punishment for killings that previously would have gone unpunished because they were justified by self-defense, and thus fell outside the definition of murder.

Granted, Randall wasn't precise in defining terms, but from the way he characterized "Grammar Police," it seems pretty clear to me that he's not thinking of your thesis adviser giving you tips on how to be more polished.

Edit: TIL that the three letter abbreviation for a Wannabe warrior who fights for certain Social Justice issues more for the sake of creating an identity for himself than for any real concern or empathy about the underlying issue (or, as sometimes used by Trumpish white nationalists, the abbreviation used to describe anyone who disagrees with a certain simplistic, somewhat misogynistic white nationalism) gets automatically changed to "meaniehead" here. Guess I've been gone for a while.
Last edited by Netreker0 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:02 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Apeiron
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Apeiron » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:59 pm UTC

1735: "Randall Monroe is Virtue Signalling Again"

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5235
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Somerville, MA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby doogly » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

shhhh, shhh, you are exposing the fragility of your soft underside
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Lazar » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:Isn't it obvious? I'll fukkin' cut you if you insult my hat.


godsdamnit, its a TRILBY, not a FEDORA!

posers.

You wish you were on my level

Here's the thing. You said "a grammar cop is a pedant". Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies pedants, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls grammar cops pedants. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "pedant family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Prescriptivae, which includes things from peevers to nitpickers to know-it-alls. So your reasoning for calling a grammar cop a pedant is because random people "call the vindictive ones pedants"? Let's get sophists and formalists in there, then, too.

Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A grammar cop is a grammar cop and a member of the pedant family. But that's not what you said. You said a grammar cop is a pedant, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the pedant family pedants, which means you'd call peevers, nitpickers, and other smart alecks pedants, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:09 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:
sotanaht wrote:So apparently the ability to speak and write at a (public) high school level is indicative of race or social class.

Yes, we've now graduated from "anybody who cares about spelling/grammar is just a dirty prescriptivist!" to "anybody who cares about spelling/grammar is a closet racist!" Fuck off, Randall.


Word.

If anyone who cares about grammar is grammar police, does that mean anyone who cares about law is regular police? More importantly, do you think the other regular police will accept that as justification for my speeding and parking wherever I want to?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

commodorejohn
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:10 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The problem is not with the nonspecific suggestion that people speak clearly. The problem is with the notion that "clearly" is synonymous with "this particular educated white upperclass standard".

If two friends are speaking AAVE and you can't understand them, it isn't because they're speaking unclearly, it's because they're speaking a dialect you don't know. In all likelihood they are perfectly able to code-switch into a dialect you understand, but are not doing so because they aren't talking to you.

(Another thing pedants seem unable to comprehend is that they are not always part of the intended audience of every utterance ever. It's the same self-centered attitude that leads racists to yell at people for having personal conversations in not-English.)

Fun fact: I never, ever said that "AAVE" constituted bad grammar. (I can't follow it that well, but it doesn't bother me. My big problem is with people who are trying to communicate in standard English but either never learned how to do so clearly or don't care about it.) You assumed that based on the fact that I took exception to lumping grammar pedants in this "actually just closet racists" category.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Weeks » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:11 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:
1735: "Randall Monroe is Virtue Signalling Again"
You are moron signalling
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

commodorejohn
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:15 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
Apeiron wrote:
1735: "Randall Monroe is Virtue Signalling Again"
You are moron signalling

Well, you sure showed him!

(Also, generally you want to end sentences with a period or other appropriate punctuation mark.)
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25707
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:20 pm UTC

No, see, the joke would be me banning you lot.

I mean, I'd laugh. And that's all that really matters.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Netreker0 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:20 pm UTC

operagost wrote:
jules.LT wrote:
cellocgw wrote:I would hope, for Randall's sake and the sake of our respect for him,
that he's referring to that subdivision of the Grammar Police who jump on errors used in casual speech.

I'll assume that those are the only ones he's actually calling "Grammar Police"

I wouldn't. After all, with this racism/classism angle, that implies a zero-tolerance policy.

I find myself having to note poor grammar/spelling online or in SMS on occasion purely because I have no frickin' idea what the writer just said. If that's being a grammar cop, then tell me where to pick up my badge.


There's the guy who says, "Can you please rephrase that or try to type it again, more clearly, because I have no clue what you just said," and actually sticks around to try to parse what you're saying when you make a sincere effort to write something more understandable.

Then there's the guy who's disingenuously claiming that he has no idea what point you're trying to make solely because you suck at they're/their/there usage, and uses it as an excuse to avoid acknowledging any of your points (after all, it's not his fault he couldn't understand you.) Or the guy who writes a small thesis specifically pointing out every grammar mistake you made and spends little to no time responding to your arguments. And of course the guy who overtly asserts that your writing mistakes clearly indicate a lack of intelligence or education, and that anything you have said or will say in the future should be dismissed out of hand.

While I imagine some behavior will be ambiguous, I would say that in general, if it looks like a guy is trying to understand you (or alternately, is genuinely offering advice to help you be understood by some third party), he's not being "Grammar Police." If criticizing the grammar (or attacking or undermining the person making the mistakes) seems to be the goal in and of itself, he probably is.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:22 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The problem is not with the nonspecific suggestion that people speak clearly. The problem is with the notion that "clearly" is synonymous with "this particular educated white upperclass standard".

If two friends are speaking AAVE and you can't understand them, it isn't because they're speaking unclearly, it's because they're speaking a dialect you don't know. In all likelihood they are perfectly able to code-switch into a dialect you understand, but are not doing so because they aren't talking to you.

(Another thing pedants seem unable to comprehend is that they are not always part of the intended audience of every utterance ever. It's the same self-centered attitude that leads racists to yell at people for having personal conversations in not-English.)

Fun fact: I never, ever said that "AAVE" constituted bad grammar. (I can't follow it that well, but it doesn't bother me. My big problem is with people who are trying to communicate in standard English but either never learned how to do so clearly or don't care about it.) You assumed that based on the fact that I took exception to lumping grammar pedants in this "actually just closet racists" category.

Nearly everyone is a bit racist, closeted or not. It's just a matter of how that racism manifests, and how justified people feel in manifesting it.

In any case, I don't care that my single example doesn't apply to what you in particular have ever ever said. It was an example for illuatration and I'm pretty sure you got the point.

Lack of clarity is rarely a matter of the sorts of minor things grammar police go on about. Writing can be perfectly grammatical and totally unclear (or even entirely meaningless), or it can be largely ungrammatical (according to standard grammar) and yet perfectly clear.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25707
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:23 pm UTC

I've found that the more indoncrap on my phone, the more forgiving of weird spellings and typing errors I become.

Especially these fixing glass phones with no ducking buttons.


-typed without corrections on a phone
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1712
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:Isn't it obvious? I'll fukkin' cut you if you insult my hat.


godsdamnit, its a TRILBY, not a FEDORA!

posers.

You wish you were on my level


Pretty sure everyone wishes that they were you, on some level.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

niauropsaka
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby niauropsaka » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

I thought Randall was rather clever with this one. I suppose it's not surprising that this thread attracted those who want to complain about it.

There is a difference between grammar and fashion as such. Grammar, strictly speaking, is part of the technology of language, and should be taken seriously. We can insist on the internal standards of the language we are using even as we understand there is not a universal standard. On the other hand, someone who is insistent on a given style or register of language may be a bit of a snob.

So yes, there are "style police" in both language and clothing. On the other hand, there are good reasons for using grammar consistently and in an audience-appropriate fashion, as there are good reasons for pragmatic clothing choices.

Grammar and costume are also local cultural affairs. Spanish grammar is only somewhat parallel to English grammar. Japanese grammar is very different. An ethnic dialect, such as AAVE/Ebonics for English or Kansai dialect for Japanese, often has its own grammatical rules that simply diverged from the ruling standard long ago. Similarly, clothing choices can be made according to local culture, weather, the needs of a job (loose clothing is dangerous for a machinist, high heels bad for a walking job, etc.).

Good grammar and low style is like blue jeans and a sensible top.
Speaking in a non-prestige dialect—that is, a local vernacular, or something like AAVE—can be done coherently and what linguists would call grammatically for that dialect. This is like dressing in a quaint style but respectably for an old lower-class subculture.
Speaking in simply bad, muddled grammar, like, "for all intensive purposes," is a bit like having your shoelaces untied and a dickey sticking at some odd angle out of your blazer. You look silly, but it may be OK if you're just trying to be punk rock.
Speaking in grammar so terrible that you can't communicate is like tying your clothes in knots around your ankles....
Last edited by niauropsaka on Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:37 pm UTC

niauropsaka wrote:So yes, there are "style police" in both language and clothing. On the other hand, there are good reasons for using grammar consistently and in an audience-appropriate fashion, as there are good reasons for pragmatic clothing choices.
Sure, but as already discussed, acknowledging good reasons for certain choices isn't the same as actively policing those choices in other people. It's the latter behavior that this comic is about, as evidenced by subtle clues such as the word "police", twice in big letters right at the top.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Netreker0 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:49 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The problem is not with the nonspecific suggestion that people speak clearly. The problem is with the notion that "clearly" is synonymous with "this particular educated white upperclass standard".

If two friends are speaking AAVE and you can't understand them, it isn't because they're speaking unclearly, it's because they're speaking a dialect you don't know. In all likelihood they are perfectly able to code-switch into a dialect you understand, but are not doing so because they aren't talking to you.

(Another thing pedants seem unable to comprehend is that they are not always part of the intended audience of every utterance ever. It's the same self-centered attitude that leads racists to yell at people for having personal conversations in not-English.)

Fun fact: I never, ever said that "AAVE" constituted bad grammar. (I can't follow it that well, but it doesn't bother me. My big problem is with people who are trying to communicate in standard English but either never learned how to do so clearly or don't care about it.) You assumed that based on the fact that I took exception to lumping grammar pedants in this "actually just closet racists" category.


Fun fact: Randall has never, ever said that "all people who care about grammar are really closet racists." At most (if you really want to stretch and torture his words) he said that "grammar police and fashion police are groups that contain a bunch of closet racists." I'll make the more charitable assumption and guess that you're somebody who cares about grammar, and have been attacked as being a grammar nazi before, and you're feeling defensive, so you assumed that Randall was attacking you and everyone like you.

I get where you're coming from, and my only advice is to get over it. Libertarians get criticized a lot for essentially being a racist-friendly political philosophy--after all, if you're somebody who opposes equal accommodation in private business or government subsidy of minority owned businesses because you hate minorities, it's much more effective and acceptable to throw in with those who oppose the exact same things, but for different reasons. My reasons for favoring small government and less regulation have nothing to do with race--if someone tries to imply otherwise, I'll disagree and restate my position, but I try to avoid reacting emotionally or defensively, or by trying to undermine them with strawman arguments and personal attacks. I have principled reasons for doing so, but it's also practical. Calling somebody a virtue-signally meaniehead libtard might feel good, if you're the kind of person who feels good about doing such things, but it only undermines your credibility among those who haven't made up their minds about you yet.

I'm guessing I agree with you on grammar more than I do with Randall. While I accept that language evolves, I tend to resist changes in language that introduce ambiguity, and I don't generally accept "language evolves" as an excuse to be careless in formal writing. I believe (perhaps unlike you) that formal writing convention favors certain classes and groups--I tend to be very skeptical of people who use language performance evaluations to prove the inferiority of certain groups because I think that people who speak black English, or Cajun or Appalachian dialects, have to put in more effort than those who basically grew up with a spoken version of standard written English. However, I think that having a standardized system of grammar and style for more formal written works is so beneficial that we should strive to do so, despite the inequality. While I despise people who point out grammar problems primarily to feel superior, I happen to think we shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction and automatically assume anyone who points out grammar problems is an asshole, in part because I don't think it's a bad thing to give more people the chance to improve their writing outside of formal education.

In short, I really should be siding with guys like you and against the guys who support Randall. But the knee-jerk defensiveness and the smug, "Look at how not-PC I am" signaling coming from "my" side of things makes that difficult.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11053
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Yakk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ4kSCXf1GM

For where new language comes from, I swear the dominance of "putting the period inside quotes only if it is part of the quote came from programming languages".

Racism and being a racist isn't a binary thing. You can have a racist attitude in one area without having it in others. Being uncomfortable with how much something being critisized is attached to race and/or class isn't "everyone who makes that critisizm is a member of the KKK", it is "wait a second, 'nice hair' means 'hair that looks like what a member of the upper classes and privledged race often has naturally'..."

The mud is everywhere. Swimming in the mud and not getting dirty is hard, one might say impossible. Someone wallowing in the mud saying "What do you mean dirty? I'm not dirty!" means ignorance usually, and sometimes dishonesty.

Doesn't make the person clean.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Netreker0 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:56 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:I've found that the more indoncrap on my phone, the more forgiving of weird spellings and typing errors I become.

Especially these fixing glass phones with no ducking buttons.


-typed without corrections on a phone


This is probably why I try to avoid any typing on my phone unless it's fairly informal and arguably time sensitive (i.e. answering texts or short e-mails.)

Strictly speaking, I could probably get away with just a phone and no laptop, but a phone is too error prone for important writing, and so tedious that it makes writing for fun not fun at all.

niauropsaka
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby niauropsaka » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:58 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
niauropsaka wrote:So yes, there are "style police" in both language and clothing. On the other hand, there are good reasons for using grammar consistently and in an audience-appropriate fashion, as there are good reasons for pragmatic clothing choices.
Sure, but as already discussed, acknowledging good reasons for certain choices isn't the same as actively policing those choices in other people. It's the latter behavior that this comic is about, as evidenced by subtle clues such as the word "police", twice in big letters right at the top.

Ah, I was trying to distinguish between two kinds of behaviour, each of which appears in both arenas:
  • "Style police" in both grammar and fashion can seem like snobs even if they think they have good reason: "Don't use the word 'OK' in your paper!" "Don't wear your shirt with printed text (or space opera girls) to a televised speech!"
  • Correcting muddled grammar or vocabulary, on the other hand, is a bit like helping a child tie his shoes.
Last edited by niauropsaka on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:00 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Weeks » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:59 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:For where new language comes from, I swear the dominance of "putting the period inside quotes only if it is part of the quote came from programming languages".
Ok wtf is this sentence
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

niauropsaka
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby niauropsaka » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

If we criticise Yakk's incomprehensible and unnecessary placement of inverted commas (er, quotation marks), are we grammar police?
Last edited by niauropsaka on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:05 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

niauropsaka wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
niauropsaka wrote:So yes, there are "style police" in both language and clothing. On the other hand, there are good reasons for using grammar consistently and in an audience-appropriate fashion, as there are good reasons for pragmatic clothing choices.
Sure, but as already discussed, acknowledging good reasons for certain choices isn't the same as actively policing those choices in other people. It's the latter behavior that this comic is about, as evidenced by subtle clues such as the word "police", twice in big letters right at the top.

Ah, I was trying to distinguish between two kinds of behaviour, each of which appears in both arenas:
  • "Style police" in both grammar and fashion can seem like snobs even if they think they have good reason: "Don't use the word 'OK' in your paper!" "Don't wear your shirt with printed text (or space opera girls) to a televised speech!"
  • Correcting muddled grammar or vocabulary, on the other hand, is a bit like helping a child tie his shoes.
I got what you were saying, I was just relating it back to complaints about the comic that seem to lump both of those behaviors into the group Randall is criticizing.

(For the record, again more for others' benefit than for yours specifically, I teach English as a foreign language, so part of my job is correcting people's grammar when it impacts clarity and coherence. I am perfectly aware of the circumstances in which it's acceptable and desirable to help people with their grammar.)

Yakk wrote:The mud is everywhere. Swimming in the mud and not getting dirty is hard, one might say impossible. Someone wallowing in the mud saying "What do you mean dirty? I'm not dirty!" means ignorance usually, and sometimes dishonesty.

Doesn't make the person clean.
Racism as dirt is far and away the most useful analogy I've stumbled across.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ZeusTKP
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby ZeusTKP » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

OK, so grammar nazis are literally Nazis :roll:

By the way, I'm an immigrant to the US. I learned to properly speak American English. I agree that English has stupid arbitrary rules, but I learned them and use them to be understood. I didn't introduce some new immigrant dialect. My pet peeve is that it's not fashionable to expect people to use "literally" correctly. So if "literally" loses its meaning, do we get a replacement word? What word am I allowed to use to mean "literally"? Should we throw away words until everyone's dialect is included?

AlvinFox
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:10 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby AlvinFox » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

The only police I worry about is the Dream Police.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

ZeusTKP wrote:OK, so grammar nazis are literally Nazis :roll:
Yes, because there is no difference between having racist attitudes and being a literal Nazi.

By the way, I'm an immigrant to the US. I learned to properly speak American English.
No, you learned the version of General American English that you were taught. It is not the American English that everyone here speaks.

I didn't introduce some new immigrant dialect.
English is some new immigrant dialect on this continent, really. And if you think English at any point was some kind of pure language unaffected by the movements of groups of people, you are simply ignorant of its history (and the history of literally every other language that has ever existed, for that matter).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

ZeusTKP wrote:OK, so grammar nazis are literally Nazis :roll:

By the way, I'm an immigrant to the US. I learned to properly speak American English. I agree that English has stupid arbitrary rules, but I learned them and use them to be understood. I didn't introduce some new immigrant dialect. My pet peeve is that it's not fashionable to expect people to use "literally" correctly. So if "literally" loses its meaning, do we get a replacement word? What word am I allowed to use to mean "literally"? Should we throw away words until everyone's dialect is included?

I can't quite tell. Your first sentence followed up by the rest of your rant *is* intentional irony, right?

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Weeks » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:25 pm UTC

Guys, I think the word "literally" might literally lose its meaning!
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Angua » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:27 pm UTC

Heaven forbid hyperbole enters into our speech.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Lazar » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

I would add, peeving about the use of "literally" is extremely fashionable. It's probably the single most complained-about thing in current English usage.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Angua » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:29 pm UTC

Like, totally.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

ZeusTKP
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby ZeusTKP » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:31 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:I would add, peeving about the use of "literally" is extremely fashionable. It's probably the single most complained-about thing in current English usage.


Still waiting for an approved replacement word.

commodorejohn
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:31 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Racism and being a racist isn't a binary thing. You can have a racist attitude in one area without having it in others. Being uncomfortable with how much something being critisized is attached to race and/or class isn't "everyone who makes that critisizm is a member of the KKK", it is "wait a second, 'nice hair' means 'hair that looks like what a member of the upper classes and privledged race often has naturally'..."

Nobody is saying it's a binary thing. We're rejecting the assertion that it's fundamentally race-linked in the first place.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Angua » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

ZeusTKP wrote:
Lazar wrote:I would add, peeving about the use of "literally" is extremely fashionable. It's probably the single most complained-about thing in current English usage.


Still waiting for an approved replacement word.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/literally
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

ZeusTKP
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby ZeusTKP » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
ZeusTKP wrote:
Lazar wrote:I would add, peeving about the use of "literally" is extremely fashionable. It's probably the single most complained-about thing in current English usage.


Still waiting for an approved replacement word.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/literally


From the link:
"not figuratively"

lawl

Is that the one you endorse?

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

ZeusTKP wrote:
Lazar wrote:I would add, peeving about the use of "literally" is extremely fashionable. It's probably the single most complained-about thing in current English usage.


Still waiting for an approved replacement word.

Drat, I was hoping you were just being silly.

So far as it goes, a replacement word isn't really needed. When one uses "literally", it's generally pretty clear from context whether it's meant ... well ... literally or not. For example, I'm pretty sure you don't actually think that anyone is trying to say that grammar police are actual, literal Nazis. Qualifiers are easy enough to add if there's room for confusion. Those may be less efficient, but I'm not sure efficiency is a terribly important priority in English.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Angua » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:41 pm UTC

ZeusTKP wrote:
Angua wrote:
ZeusTKP wrote:
Lazar wrote:I would add, peeving about the use of "literally" is extremely fashionable. It's probably the single most complained-about thing in current English usage.


Still waiting for an approved replacement word.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/literally


From the link:
"not figuratively"

lawl

Is that the one you endorse?

And now we know you're not arguing in good faith.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby SDK » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:42 pm UTC

"Like, totally" beats all those entries anyway. Literally.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: moody7277 and 70 guests