Condescending Words

[A.A.King]

You are mistaken, all people who have children now at one point did not. So they have experienced that and can more appropriately contrast. They had the experience of not having children. So they have first-hand knowledge. Now because we're all different their experience is likely wildly distinct from what another person's might be, but they do have first hand knowledge. Whereas somebody who has never had children only has first-hand knowledge of their own area.

Their first hand knowledge of "not having children" is too limited to be of any value for this discussion. The most obvious reason is that they (more likely than not) experienced "not having a child" through the eyes of someone who wanted a child. Basically, their live went from: "Not having a child but wanting a child (or atleast liking the idea of having a child)" to "deciding to have a child" to "having a child and seeing it as the prove that what they always thought was right"

They lack the first hand knowledge to make accurate judgement on "Not having a child (and not wanting a child)" and more specifically "A completely childless life". It's like saying you have first hand knowledge of "not having both leg" because you broke your leg during a skiing accident and thus you had a time in which you couldn't use one of your legs.

Another important little side note is the fact that 'parental love' is basically nothing more than an advanced form of Stockholm syndrome and that in particular 'a mothers bond with her child' is based on entirely on 9 months and the sunken cost fallacy. The decision to have a child is (generally) permanent: Once you have a child and it doesn't work out all you can do is count down until college starts so you have a few years of genuine happiness before your own little personal dream killer moves back in your basement. The inability to go back on a decision affects how you experience the aftermath as well as how you look back at the happy times now gone by.

But the point is this: A parent doesn't have the right perspective on a childless life, most parents have no first hand knowledge of not wanting a child (because long before 'having a child' they 'wanted a child') and most importantly: no parent has first hand knowledge of "a completely childless life" which is what they are commenting on when they say "you'll regret it".

When you emigrate to another country you can't say others they'll regret it if they don't also move abroad because you lack the first hand knowledge of 'never having moved' as well as lacking the ability to think like someone who is perfectly content staying in one city for the rest of their life: what makes you happy doesn't make everybody happy and saying that people'll regret not making similar decisions to you is condescending because you're assuming that you know best and more importantly that you understand someone better then they understand themselves.

[Lethologica]

The rest aside, this:

Another important little side note is the fact that 'parental love' is basically nothing more than an advanced form of Stockholm syndrome and that in particular 'a mothers bond with her child' is based on entirely on 9 months and the sunken cost fallacy. The decision to have a child is (generally) permanent: Once you have a child and it doesn't work out all you can do is count down until college starts so you have a few years of genuine happiness before your own little personal dream killer moves back in your basement. The inability to go back on a decision affects how you experience the aftermath as well as how you look back at the happy times now gone by.

is a grossly unfair comparison. That's not wisdom talking, just cynicism. The psychological and biological dynamics of capture-bonding are very different from those of parental love. If nothing else, you can start by throwing out that comment about a mother's bond--as if adopted children are never loved! As if mothers have never had any choice but keeping the child! Clearly there's more going on than "I have to justify my pregnancy," and I can't believe that needed saying.

[The Succubus]

Not to be confused with condensating words like "moisture" and "droplet".

[A.A.King]

is a grossly unfair comparison. That's not wisdom talking, just cynicism. The psychological and biological dynamics of capture-bonding are very different from those of parental love. If nothing else, you can start by throwing out that comment about a mother's bond--as if adopted children are never loved! As if mothers have never had any choice but keeping the child! Clearly there's more going on than "I have to justify my pregnancy," and I can't believe that needed saying.

To be fair, the parts you were quoting were mainly jokes (making the point that 'a parent can't help but love its child' extreme for comic effect) though I disagree with the notion that cynicism isn't wisdom. As to the mother's bond comment: it was about the 'special' mother's bond people like to refer to (the one the biological mother still feels with the child she put up for adoption decades later) which comes on top of the normal parental bond (meaning that there were no exceptions in my statement for adopted children). I thought the extreme language of the more jokey parts were al fairly obvious (I also referred to a child as "your own little personal dream killer" after all) and I can't believe that needed saying.

[Lethologica]

Okay, yeah, my humor meter was turned way down for this thread. Gotta recalibrate. Sorry for the mixup.

[A.A.King]

Okay, yeah, my humor meter was turned way down for this thread. Gotta recalibrate. Sorry for the mixup.

That's okay, the internet's lack of tone can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish between someone who is being very serious and (very) wrong and someone who is being a just little less serious but also very funny. I mean just a week ago or so somebody in a different thread felt the need to ask me if I was really painting Nixon as the protagonist of the Watergate story...

I am just sorry you didn't get to enjoy what I personally thought was quite a decent line first time round.

[Winter_Wolf]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

[Knaight]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

It's generally used more to say that people are essentially lying, but through a method sophisticated enough that the actual lies are strongly implied more than overtly stated.

[Winter_Wolf]

It's generally used more to say that people are essentially lying, but through a method sophisticated enough that the actual lies are strongly implied more than overtly stated.

Probably true enough, but I still find it cowardly and disgusting. Smacks of trying to circumvent the board rules on saying nasty things about other users. Then again I'm not a fan of sophistry.

I also have pet hates about certain words which are just innocuous. Nothing even rational, just that they set off my crazy button.

[AMFV]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

Accusing somebody of lying isn't calling them stupid or being condescending. I would say that to say "calling somebody disingenuous is the equivalent of calling them stupid" is a little bit disingenuous in and of itself :P, since that isn't the explicit meaning of the word. It's claiming that somebody is being deliberately deceptive (although not always lying), more like misrepresenting facts.

[Marlowe]

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

"Disingenuous" means nothing like "Stupid".

[goto124]

To continue with the example provided for us ("Trust me, women are horrible drivers") I can imagine a discussion in which one of my friend would go: "Trust me: women are on average worse drivers than men, I read it in a newspaper article" (the 'on average' bit being there so I don't compare a profession female race car driver with the time he drove his car in a moat, my friends are smart like that). The "Trust Me" is added in the hope that everybody just accepts the claim and agree that he is right without further discussion. My point was merely that in those situations I am willing to accept that he/she thinks he/she 'read it somewhere' but that I want to have read it too before I'm willing to consider conceding the point.

To elaborate on my own example, the speaker would claim his own experience to be evidence. "Trust me, over all my years of driving, women are bad drivers. There are a few good woman drivers and a few bad man drivers, but as a whole women are the one who drive badly".

I suspect there's selective picking of evidence involved...

[Jak]

"Your little (insert noun here)"

Your little game
Your little group
Your little friends
Your little job
Your little church
Your little literally anything you say after these two words. *>_<

This one really gets to me.


Except of course when it's being used to specify something which is both actually in your possession and comparatively smaller than another thing in your possession of the same type. Ex: "Your little toe has a blister on it," or "hey, can you hand me that knife? No, your knife. No, your little one."

[Frozen_Feet]

Re: Disingenuous:

I guess any negative criticism will come off as condescending to a person who is convinced they are right, or feel intellectually intimidated, or just plain don't like the person giving the critique.

I will point out accusing a critic of being condescending is often condescending itself, and is always disingenuous (as it doesn't address the criticism, instead focusing on the critic's state of mind).

[Lethologica]

I will point out accusing a critic of being condescending is often condescending itself, and is always disingenuous (as it doesn't address the criticism, instead focusing on the critic's state of mind).

Reacting to someone's tone is not a dishonest action unless the reaction is meant to cover the content as well as the tone. Accusing someone of talking down to you is not the same as talking down to them. People who engage in credibility flame wars often simultaneously condescend while accusing the other person of being condescending, but that's not inherent to the accusation.

[Winter_Wolf]

"Disingenuous" means nothing like "Stupid".

I'll own that the word doesn't mean what I thought it meant. Don't think it's better to be called dishonest, though. At least with stupid one can claim ignorance, as opposed to the latter being generally malignant. Still think it's an overblown word for people who like to talk down at others.

[blunk]

It's claiming that somebody is being deliberately deceptive (although not always lying), more like misrepresenting facts.

A: "Murders doubled under your first year of mayorship!"
B: "They went from one to two! In a city of a million people!"
A: "Yes, so what are you going to do about this murder epidemic happening on your watch?"

[Marlowe]

Many things people say on the on the internet are WRONG. Sometimes they're wrong because the writer plainly has no clue what he's talking about and sometimes because the writer is being deliberately deceptive to push some opinion of his own.

Nobody should steer clear of calling out this behaviour in perfectly correct language just because somebody else finds a certain perfectly correct word "condescending."

Just to be further prissy, the word "Disingenuous" is by no means "overblown". Quite the opposite. It is usually a severe understatement. However, the use of "cowardly" and "disgusting" to describe people using a word you don't like and don't understand certainly is.

[AMFV]

Many things people say on the on the internet are WRONG. Sometimes they're wrong because the writer plainly has no clue what he's talking about and sometimes because the writer is being deliberately deceptive to push some opinion of his own.

It is worth noting that disingenuous doesn't apply when people are wrong, only when they are being deliberately deceptive. It is useful sometimes to point out when somebody is deliberately misrepresenting data.

[Winter_Wolf]

Many things people say on the on the internet are WRONG. Sometimes they're wrong because the writer plainly has no clue what he's talking about and sometimes because the writer is being deliberately deceptive to push some opinion of his own.

Nobody should steer clear of calling out this behaviour in perfectly correct language just because somebody else finds a certain perfectly correct word "condescending."

Just to be further prissy, the word "Disingenuous" is by no means "overblown". Quite the opposite. It is usually a severe understatement. However, the use of "cowardly" and "disgusting" to describe people using a word you don't like and don't understand certainly is.

Hey alright, y'all win. Shall we agree to disagree and move on with our lives? I didn't think it was going to be such a hot button topic.

[OldTrees1]

What about "It"? Not that condescension towards objects(Pick it up) and actions(Do it) is an unreasonable air of superiority. We are superior to our action and to mere objects. So the condescension of "It" is only noticeable when it is offensive by calling a non It "It"(It has chores to do).

[AMFV]

Hey alright, y'all win. Shall we agree to disagree and move on with our lives? I didn't think it was going to be such a hot button topic.

The problem is that condescension in-and-of-itself is very much in the eye of the beholder. Certainly one can speak with words intend to evoke that particular feeling, but there are a lot of cases where people assume that others are being condescending when they aren't. That's what we're seeing here.

[ThinkMinty]

What about "It"? Not that condescension towards objects(Pick it up) and actions(Do it) is an unreasonable air of superiority. We are superior to our action and to mere objects. So the condescension of "It" is only noticeable when it is offensive by calling a non It "It"(It has chores to do).

"It rubs its lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again." is likewise condescending.

Not to be confused with condensating words like "moisture" and "droplet".

You win half an internet for that.

A: "Murders doubled under your first year of mayorship!"
B: "They went from one to two! In a city of a million people!"
A: "Yes, so what are you going to do about this murder epidemic happening on your watch?"

You win a whole internet.

"Your little (insert noun here)"

Your little game
Your little group
Your little friends
Your little job
Your little church
Your little literally anything you say after these two words. *>_<

This one really gets to me.


Except of course when it's being used to specify something which is both actually in your possession and comparatively smaller than another thing in your possession of the same type. Ex: "Your little toe has a blister on it," or "hey, can you hand me that knife? No, your knife. No, your little one."

Yes, this.

"Your little gambling problem" is similarly condescending.

I find one word condescending above all others: disingenuous. Frankly the only way I have ever seen or heard it used is as a fancy ten dollar word to call people stupid. Granted nine times in ten the place I saw it used was these very boards, so who knows what they thought they were saying.

Anti-intellectualism is always condescending.

[goto124]

"It rubs its lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again." is likewise condescending.

I decided to check the origins of the line. I see how it's condescending.

[Winter_Wolf]

I decided to check the origins of the line. I see how it's condescending.

Were you previously unfamiliar with the line? That was a pretty big movie back in its day. It's like how I knew lines from Pulp Fiction for a good year or two before I'd ever seen it.

Edit: :embarrassed: had some stuff that really should have been in the confessions thread.

[goto124]

"Don't argue". Has anyone else had this told to them in a non-condescending manner? Often followed by "face the FACTS" when the speaker is deriding the listener about e.g. "how are you so bad at driving through this [really narrow and cramped] multi-storey carpark, I drive through this with no problem, I don't care how your muscle memory works you should just follow the signs, I don't care how you're trying not to scratch my car considering how easily angry I get, you're so scared you should be braver, SCREAM SHOUT SCREAM". It's ironic how he's says "don't be scared" when he actually screams it out in an angry loud voice. All the time.

"Don't argue" literally tells someone to shut up, stop the conversation entirely, and communicates "I'm right, you're wrong, you have no right to even open your mouth, let alone challenge me". Best reason I can come up, is if the 'someone' was saying very clearly discriminatory things... though, I would guess other phrases such as "shut up" would be applied.

What about "of course"? I've learnt many things that seem self-evident may not be even true. Last I heard the phrase, it was "of course men and women are completely different! How can they be the same?" when hearing on the radio about the female head coach of an all-male basketball team. When the radio said "I think it doesn't matter if [the coach is] a man or an woman", the "of-course"er just scoffed.

I may or may not have heard someone IRL say "of course, while it's okay for girls to cuddle, it's disgusting for a man to hug another man so closely".

The only times I would ever say "of course", would be stuff like "of course, 1+1 = 2" or "of course, she was upset and furious her well-loved sister was butchered to death", but even then I feel no need to say "of course". I just state the thing.

Also, "WOMAN!" is more or less an indication of misogynism. Especially when repeated over and over with the verbal equivalent of bolding, as if the fact the accused human is female is the most important thing above all else. I'd witnessed a man who would say refer to a jaywalking man as an "idiot", but a jaywalking woman as "woman". Sometimes I can't believe this is a real person, as opposed to a caricature of misogynism.

[Bulldog Psion]

goto, I've got to say that you run into a LOT weirder people than I have ever personally encountered. Glad I don't live around them.

[Disc Lorde]

"It's obvious" and the variants "It's just common sense" or "It's just common courtesy". Implying that "it" (whatever "it" is) is the only possible way a reasonable person (like the speaker) would think/act and if you think/act otherwise for even a second you are incredibly stupid and/or inconsiderate and you don't even deserve an explanation of why what you thought/did is wrong.

[goto124]

I can't count the number of times Use your common sense! was told when I did use my common sense, but the speaker wanted me to use his common sense. For example, in a car, he pointed out of a car window and said "Look!". So I looked out of the window, not knowing what to look at, and I got slapped immediately.

"What happened?!"
"I told you to look at the car mirror! You purposely irritated me! You purposely refuse to follow instructions, you purposely look everywhere except the car mirror, you purposely act stupid, you purposely refuse to use your common sense, [rant continues with 'you purposely' repeated ad infinitum]"

At one point, he even made a racist remark, and then went on a similar rant because I flinched at his remark, insisting he's not racist and everything I do and think is wrong.

Doesn't help that "It's obvious" and "It's just common sense" are used genuinely, meaning the speakers actually believe 'it' is 'obvious' or 'just common sense', and cannot imagine otherwise. I have even been told "you're autistic!" when I tried to explain how something is not necessarily 'common sense'. Especially when the something is along the lines of "place the bag there. No, not that there! The other there! Women are so stupid!"

[Knaight]

What about "of course"? I've learnt many things that seem self-evident may not be even true. Last I heard the phrase, it was "of course men and women are completely different! How can they be the same?" when hearing on the radio about the female head coach of an all-male basketball team. When the radio said "I think it doesn't matter if [the coach is] a man or an woman", the "of-course"er just scoffed.

The majority of the time I see this phrase, it's in the context of acknowledging the weakness of a position. It shows up in the context of "[A], [B], and [C] indicate [D], but of course there is the matter of [E], which would seem to contradict [D], but doesn't because of [F]".

There's also a side use by certain textbook authors, along with "Obviously", "it is evident that", and other such things. Usually, the words are used to gloss over a great deal of math. There's a physical chemistry textbook I've seen that is particularly bad about this; it showed up more than once for triple integrals for the Schrodinger wave function (sometimes with added operators) in spherical coordinates.