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
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5421
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby doogly » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:45 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:What about Hawaiian pizza? Should it be banned or not?

Fuck Hawaiian pizza so hard. That shit is an insult to my people.
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
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:50 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
netsplit wrote:The only thing I ever have trouble with is the double negative.

But which is worse: double negatives or double denim?


Without double denim, we wouldn't have groups like B*witched.

C'est la vie.

User avatar
ShuRugal
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby ShuRugal » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I was wondering when we'd get the "it's just class not race" position in here.

As usual, that position is simplistic and wrong. The perception of how people speak (such as whether they have an accent and whether they use correct grammar) is correlated with the perception of race, independent of any indications of social class.



kindly explain this, then.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
cellocgw wrote:What about Hawaiian pizza? Should it be banned or not?

Fuck Hawaiian pizza so hard. That shit is an insult to my people.

Tasty insult to your people.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5421
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby doogly » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Nefarious falsehoods.
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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

ShuRugal wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I was wondering when we'd get the "it's just class not race" position in here.

As usual, that position is simplistic and wrong. The perception of how people speak (such as whether they have an accent and whether they use correct grammar) is correlated with the perception of race, independent of any indications of social class.

kindly explain this, then.

My Fair Lady (youtube has problems on my phone so I don't know if it's the original or what) is an example of how it's correlated with class. Obviously there is a class element, and no one has ever denied that.

My point was that there is also a race aspect, independent of any way that race correlates with class.

Edit: I see how some people might have misread my post. I mean that the correlation with race is independent from class, not that the perception of people's speech is independent from class.
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
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby orthogon » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:43 pm UTC

ShuRugal wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I was wondering when we'd get the "it's just class not race" position in here.

As usual, that position is simplistic and wrong. The perception of how people speak (such as whether they have an accent and whether they use correct grammar) is correlated with the perception of race, independent of any indications of social class.



kindly explain this, then.

Eliza Doolittle is black? I seriously need to revisit my assumptions.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Netreker0 » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
niauropsaka wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The thing about everybody being racist is that it dilutes the term and makes it more or less useless for conveying a point. I've learned two new words, jorts(love em) and AAVE, although I suppose AAVE is an acronym.

Sorry, I think I forgot to spell it out. African-American Vernacular English. It's sort of a flashpoint for grammarians and linguists, because it is clearly a form of North American English, but one which sounds "wrong" to many Anglo-Americans. For example, the perfect tenses are formed a little differently from those in "General American."


I respectfully disagree with everyone who claims that expecting proper use of English grammar is racist. It only appears racist because of the large portion of the black community which is also in the poorest economic class. Poor grammar, including pseudo-sublanguages such as ebonics, is far more closely linked to economics than race. (Yes, I'm fully aware of the reactionary behavior of some people in the lowest econ. bracket who angrily accuse those of their kin who try to get educated and speak in a clear manner of "selling out and becoming a whitey." Fear and hopelesness does a lot of bad things to people.) In this same vein, there's a big difference between a cultural set of slang (Cockney being one of the typical examples) and a lack of understanding of proper speech as a result of inadequate education.

Making a lot of good points. People who care about grammar aren't necessarily racist, even subconsciously.

So let's drop this grammar equals racism stuff 'mkay? Otherwise I'm gonna tell the joke about Miss Ebonics USA.


I know (hope) you're joking, but the choice of joke kind of undercuts everything you just said.

Whatever your present views on race and its links to grammar, you really can't change the history in which race/class/power played a huge role in determining what was acceptable. Being one of them myself, I don't automatically assume that people who care about grammar are racist, or even unconsciously motivated by racial bias. However, when someone rather blithely (and proudly) declares that the possibility is so ridiculous that they're not even willing to take a moment for introspection on the topic (even in a "joking" way), that is enough to make me start wondering about them.

It's like a guy who inexplicably keeps using the term "n*gger rigged." It's possible that he simply grew up not understanding why certain people might find the term offensive, and while the etymology of the term of based on a slur and a racial stereotype, the term itself isn't used to denigrate a person (except implicitly vis a vis the etymology, of course.) I'm willing to believe he has no conscious or unconscious racial bias, and I'm willing to consider arguments as to why the advantages of continuing to use the term outweigh the offense it might cause. But if his response is basically, "I'm not racist, you're an idiot for thinking this has anything to do with racism, and the only reason you have for bringing this is up is your SJmeaniehead agenda!", followed by a full shutdown of the listening portion of his brain, then he waives his right to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Last edited by Netreker0 on Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:00 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Zylon
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Zylon » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:And I first discovered it 20 or so years ago when visiting the home of an acquaintance. About 5 minutes in I realized that I didn't speak whatever language it was that his friends were speaking.

Barbara Billingsley to the rescue!

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:11 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.

It's the sort of thing dilettantes care about. Comic sans is the typographical equivalent.

It's just another example of the poor standards of modern elitism.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

DanD
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby DanD » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:36 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Now, how you go from my statements that grammar is class-related to claiming I'm discriminating on the basis of class quite bewilders me. I want to eliminate class by raising everyone up to the max possible level (no Sirens of Titan for me, thank you). I don't insult people on the basis of class, except of course for Yankees fans.


The fact that you refer to AAVE as a "pseudo sub-language" rather than a dialect is not helping your case. You may not have meant it that way, but it does carry a distinctly classist tone. Specifically, it does exactly what people have been discussing in this thread, elevating your dialect to the "one true language".

User avatar
Solra Bizna
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:44 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Solra Bizna » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:57 pm UTC

netsplit wrote:The only thing I ever have trouble with is the double negative. When people use it, say: "he ain't got no apples". What they mean is: "he lacks apples (and I'm encoding the negating condition redundantly so you're less likely to mishear me and be mislead to believe he has apples)". That's smart! When you think about it, a double negative construction enhances the ability for others to receive what you intend to communicate. Unless your audience is intentionally being asshats, or programmers.


The other day, I was riding in a car. The driver performed an unusual maneuver that was within the bounds of the law. I said, "That maneuver was legal." She said, "I did it because it was legal." I said, "No, you did it because it was expedient. You didn't not do it because it wasn't illegal."

I'm very sick, so the self-inflicted quadruple negative hurt my brain for a while.

(For context, I'm learning to drive and she is helping me, so a conversation confirming consensus on traffic laws is normal for us. And "casual pedantry" is sort of a game for the two of us that both of us enjoy and consent to.)

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby sje46 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:30 am 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.


Also this is more about English in general than informal English, but people always complain about the same, like, three thing about what makes English illogical. Number 1 is always "it's silly how 'gh' has a billion pronuncitions" (or some variation on inconsistent English orthographics) and another one I hear a lot is "flammable and inflammable mean the same thing?! English is so silly!". I blame reddit for these repetitive memes.

btw flammable and inflammable meant the same (ish) thing in LATIN, so it's awfully silly to blame English for that one.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:56 am UTC

sje46 wrote:I blame reddit for these repetitive memes.

Guess Lucy and Desi had a time machine...
"'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
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3491
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:06 am UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Guess Lucy and Desi had a time machine...
Naturally...

commodorejohn
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:20 am UTC

Touche, sir!
"'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
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:00 pm UTC

Solra Bizna wrote:The other day, I was riding in a car. The driver performed an unusual maneuver that was within the bounds of the law. I said, "That maneuver was legal." She said, "I did it because it was legal." I said, "No, you did it because it was expedient. You didn't not do it because it wasn't illegal."

I'm very sick, so the self-inflicted quadruple negative hurt my brain for a while.

(For context, I'm learning to drive and she is helping me, so a conversation confirming consensus on traffic laws is normal for us. And "casual pedantry" is sort of a game for the two of us that both of us enjoy and consent to.)


Is she likely do do manoeuvres that are not legal?

"That manoeuvre was illegal."
"What makes you say that?"
"Other than the bouncing from going down stairs and the screaming pedestrians hurling themselves out of our way? I'd say the No Entry sign."

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:28 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
sotanaht wrote:So apparently the ability to speak and write at a (public) high school level is indicative of race or social class. I would have thought it to be intelligence or effort, unless he's saying those things are related somehow?

Maybe because those style guides are usually based on the customs of the upper class, which is in turn mostly of the areas dominant race.


Usually, but not always. There's a widely (in the UK) recognised / recognized dialect for the county of Yorkshire. For those not familiar with that local variance of English: if you've ever heard the characters from Winterfell on Game Of Thrones, it's like that. Classic works of literature such as Wuthering Heights, Nicholas Nickleby and The Secret Garden contain examples of it. It's a very working class dialect, very blue collar and proud of it and the Yorkshire Dialect Society (since 1897) has encouraged the preservation and continued use of it in daily life.

Just one example where a large swath (million of people) communicate in a way not prescribed by the upper classes ("classes" with the short "a" like "asses", not the long "a" like in "arses").

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:29 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:Touche, sir!


You mean touché, surely.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:32 pm UTC

sje46 wrote:Number 1 is always "it's silly how 'gh' has a billion pronuncitions" (or some variation on inconsistent English orthographics) and another one I hear a lot is "flammable and inflammable mean the same thing?! English is so silly!". I blame reddit for these repetitive memes.


I remember people talking about flammable and inflammable in the 1970s, it turns out it's a good 160 years older than that in origin (when a scholar translating a Latin text coined the English word flammable from the Latin flammare in 1813)... and there's a famous example from 1855 regarding the weirdness of "gh". I don't blame Reddit for them.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:55 pm UTC

I don't think Reddit is being credited with being the first to discover them. It's just that the conspicuous focus on this apparent inconsistency and not that one is something that's actively kept in circulation by the rants about them. I mean, both of these are things that catch up kids learning to read - they couldn't very well go completely unnoticed, but the attention they get is still disproportionate.

I think it's a little strange for adults to be genuinely tripped up by flammable vs. inflammable, as opposed to just finding it amusing or putting on. "In" is a prefix of ambiguous implication, but there are quite a lot of words that use it in any of the three-ish common senses (as un, en, or in-like-the-preposition). People don't claim difficulty in the reverse with "indestructible". I suppose it adds a wrinkle that "inflame" doesn't have anything to do with fire like "inflammable" does.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby omgryebread » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:08 pm UTC

I wonder if people complained about the word "awful" when that underwent a semantic change. That one actually erased the old meaning as well, unlike "literally".

The additional meaning for "literally" is pretty cool. It's an intensifier, but one that can only be used for figurative speech. "I am cold" vs "I am literally cold" doesn't really make much sense, but "I am freezing to death" is less intense than "I am literally freezing to death."
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby SDK » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:22 pm UTC

This thread literally didn't make it to page 6 in time.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
ShuRugal
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby ShuRugal » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:19 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
ShuRugal wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I was wondering when we'd get the "it's just class not race" position in here.

As usual, that position is simplistic and wrong. The perception of how people speak (such as whether they have an accent and whether they use correct grammar) is correlated with the perception of race, independent of any indications of social class.

kindly explain this, then.

My Fair Lady (youtube has problems on my phone so I don't know if it's the original or what) is an example of how it's correlated with class. Obviously there is a class element, and no one has ever denied that.

My point was that there is also a race aspect, independent of any way that race correlates with class.

Edit: I see how some people might have misread my post. I mean that the correlation with race is independent from class, not that the perception of people's speech is independent from class.


Your statement appears to be that there is -always- a race element. My point with MFL is that it is set in a place and time where "racial culture" was practically unheard of: the poor underclass and the wealthy ruling class were both white Brits. Racial discrimination in such a setting is impossible.

DanD
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby DanD » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:39 pm UTC

ShuRugal wrote: My point with MFL is that it is set in a place and time where "racial culture" was practically unheard of: the poor underclass and the wealthy ruling class were both white Brits. Racial discrimination in such a setting is impossible.


I would suggest you double check the status of Indian immigrants and especially Anglo-Indians in the country. Racial culture was absolutely a thing in Edwardian England.

If you mean it doesn't show up in MFL, well that's a different thing.

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 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:57 pm UTC

ShuRugal wrote:Your statement appears to be that there is -always- a race element. My point with MFL is that it is set in a place and time where "racial culture" was practically unheard of: the poor underclass and the wealthy ruling class were both white Brits. Racial discrimination in such a setting is impossible.

No, he said that perception of speech correlates with perceptions of race (which it manifestly does), and that it does so independently of perceptions of class (i.e. varieties associated with racial minorities within a given class will be perceived differently from those associated with the dominant racial group within the same class). This doesn't preclude the concept that it also correlates with class, nor does it imply that the racial correlation is operative within a limited context that lacks racial variation. By your logic, we could just as well find two aristocrats with regionally colored upper-class accents and argue that speech perception doesn't correlate with class, and then an aristocrat and a worker from the same region to argue that it doesn't correlate with region either.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:27 pm UTC

ShuRugal wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
ShuRugal wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I was wondering when we'd get the "it's just class not race" position in here.

As usual, that position is simplistic and wrong. The perception of how people speak (such as whether they have an accent and whether they use correct grammar) is correlated with the perception of race, independent of any indications of social class.

kindly explain this, then.

My Fair Lady (youtube has problems on my phone so I don't know if it's the original or what) is an example of how it's correlated with class. Obviously there is a class element, and no one has ever denied that.

My point was that there is also a race aspect, independent of any way that race correlates with class.

Edit: I see how some people might have misread my post. I mean that the correlation with race is independent from class, not that the perception of people's speech is independent from class.


Your statement appears to be that there is -always- a race element. My point with MFL is that it is set in a place and time where "racial culture" was practically unheard of: the poor underclass and the wealthy ruling class were both white Brits. Racial discrimination in such a setting is impossible.

Protip: Read the entirety of what you quote next time. In my edit I explicitly clarified that I'm not saying all perceptions of speech patterns ultimately come down to race.

(Also, as mentioned, you're factually wrong about British history. There have always been people of color in Britain.)
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)

Zylon
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Zylon » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:The additional meaning for "literally" is pretty cool. It's an intensifier, but one that can only be used for figurative speech. "I am cold" vs "I am literally cold" doesn't really make much sense, but "I am freezing to death" is less intense than "I am literally freezing to death."

Since when does hyperbole need an intensifier? That's just sad.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

It doesn't *need* an intensifier, just like we don't really need hyperbole in the first place.

But people still like to use intensifiers for added emphasis, hyperbole or not, and they have since literally forever.
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
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5421
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby doogly » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Protip: Read the entirety of what you quote next time. In my edit I explicitly clarified that I'm not saying all perceptions of speech patterns ultimately come down to race.

(Also, as mentioned, you're factually wrong about British history. There have always been people of color in Britain.)

These are pretty amateur level tips.
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
Solra Bizna
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:44 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Solra Bizna » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:46 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:Is she likely do do manoeuvres that are not legal?

"That manoeuvre was illegal."
"What makes you say that?"
"Other than the bouncing from going down stairs and the screaming pedestrians hurling themselves out of our way? I'd say the No Entry sign."


It's not uncommon for drivers around here to perform maneuvers that are safe but illegal. For instance, moving two or more lanes over in a single maneuver on a single signal. (Safe if there are sufficiently few cars around, but illegal.) In which case the conversation would be something like, "That was illegal, right?" "Yeah."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:50 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Protip: Read the entirety of what you quote next time. In my edit I explicitly clarified that I'm not saying all perceptions of speech patterns ultimately come down to race.

(Also, as mentioned, you're factually wrong about British history. There have always been people of color in Britain.)

These are pretty amateur level tips.

I can't recall ever actually seeing "protip" used to describe a non-amateur-level tip.
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
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5421
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby doogly » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:31 pm UTC

Literally every time?
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
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5773
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 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

Verily, I say unto you.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby ps.02 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:49 pm UTC

Why is this thread all about grammar? Where are the fashion police? Where are all the people who are outraged because they think they're being labeled as fashion police when in fact they just care about fashion? Where's the outrage from the fashion police that Randall literally thinks they are also literally grammar police?

Could we bring out the fashion police by trolling? Like, if we all wear hijabs in France, or something?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26440
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:33 am UTC

No, because France's regular police apparently have nothing worthwhile to do so they've been assigned that Islamophobic bit of fashion policing to do themselves.
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
SDK
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby SDK » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:35 am UTC

The fashion police got in touch with me about a month back when it was revealed that I had worn the same shirt to the company BBQ three years in a row. I haven't heard from them since.

I don't really see what the big deal is, though. Plaid never goes out of style.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

YTPrenewed
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby YTPrenewed » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:48 am UTC

If anything, fashion police and grammar police are opposites.

Fashion police are putting their views on style ahead of pragmatism. The time and money spent on things that are considered fashionable can come at the expense of more practical things. (Not to say there can't be value in wearing them on special occasions from time to time, but jobs that make a suit and tie the norm are pushing it.)

Grammar police, on the other hand, are defending something much more pragmatic. Improper grammar; if you let it become a habit; has plenty of potential for causing misunderstandings. The rules of grammar help make it a little more obvious who to blame for such misunderstandings.

As for the racial angle, it wouldn't surprise me if some ethnic groups associated with poverty correlated with a poor education in grammar. However, this doesn't require you to choose between blaming grammar and blaming that ethnic group. And I suppose it's possible that other ethnic groups associated with having a first language that isn't English could be associated with poor grammar as well. Again, though, that wouldn't make it a problem with grammar, but rather with the circumstances said group is in.

Though given the amount of improper grammar even among middle-class white people, I'm not sure we should assume either of the above.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:24 am UTC

YTPrenewed wrote:The rules of grammar help make it a little more obvious who to blame for such misunderstandings.

Clearly, for successful communication to occur, it is important above all else that we know who to blame.

Your semicolon abuse made me twitch, but in precisely the same way as encountering someone wearing hot pink and salmon in the same outfit. I can understand both of you perfectly well, I'm merely disinclined.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
3rdtry
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:46 pm UTC

Re: 1735: "Fashion Police and Grammar Police"

Postby 3rdtry » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:28 am UTC

I'm a bit fucking tired of Randall's regular, smug "anti-smugness" comics.

Using a webcomic with millions of visits as your personal soapbox to criticize people for occasionally correcting others in private. Nope, not hypocritical at all.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests