Condescending Words

[Andre]

k


when you're too lazy for words, that letter's got you covered

[AMFV]

k


when you're too lazy for words, that letter's got you covered

Or if you're just looking to acknowledge something, but you don't have anything really to add to it.

[danzibr]

Oh yeah. While not inherently condescending, as Aedilred mentioned I find /thread to be very annoying. I have few pet peeves, but that's one of them.

[blunk]

Starting the sentence with "look," as in, "look, we're not going to do X without doing Y first."

[Bulldog Psion]

Starting the sentence with "look," as in, "look, we're not going to do X without doing Y first."

That often seems more like exasperation than condescension to me.

"Look, I know you want me to get me there in 2 hours, but this car can't travel at 200 mph."

"Look, I said three times already that I'd pay you tomorrow. Keeping after me isn't going to get my Friday paycheck into my hands on Thursday."

[goto124]

Do people in customer service say "look" a lot?

[Beelzebub1111]

"Problematic" is the first one that comes to mind for me. It's just the most passive-agressive way to say that your morally superior for not liking something.

[AMFV]

"Problematic" is the first one that comes to mind for me. It's just the most passive-agressive way to say that your morally superior for not liking something.

Problematic isn't typically used for people. It's typically used to describe something that may cause an issue later, and in my experience is generally used for objects or things. It's certainly possible to use it on people, but I don't think the word is inherently condescending.

[Beelzebub1111]

Problematic isn't typically used for people. It's typically used to describe something that may cause an issue later, and in my experience is generally used for objects or things. It's certainly possible to use it on people, but I don't think the word is inherently condescending.

It isn't that it's used on people, but that it's almost always used in a way to imply that "if you don't share MY personal moral code, then YOU are a bad person" in such a backhanded snide way that it sets my teeth on edge.

[AMFV]

It isn't that it's used on people, but that it's almost always used in a way to imply that "if you don't share MY personal moral code, then YOU are a bad person" in such a backhanded snide way that it sets my teeth on edge.

I don't think I've ever heard it used in a way that was referring to personal beliefs or matters of taste. Typically I've heard it used for technical problems.

Like "We could such and such material for this, but some aspect of said material may be problematic".

[Beelzebub1111]

Oh! I see. We are comming from two different usages here. I get the logistical sense, and that's fine. I was considering the socioligical usage. Like the implication that something that offends you is indicitive of a problem with society as a whole.

"The way that so-and-so character in this media dresses is problematic. "

[AMFV]

Oh! I see. We are comming from two different usages here. I get the logistical sense, and that's fine. I was considering the socioligical usage. Like the implication that something that offends you is indicitive of a problem with society as a whole.

"The way that so-and-so character in this media dresses is problematic. "

To be fair the way that character dresses is definitely not appropriate.

I think that it's not so much condescension as it establishing a framework for a discussion. You would probably follow up with the reasons you believed it to be problematic, and that would be useful for discussion. If it's being used outside of that context it's presumptive, but I would say inherently condescending.

[BannedInSchool]

Eh, seems to be a rash of people these days interpreting words in hugely different ways than they were intended, with neither side apparently aware that there's been any miscommunication. On one hand you don't want to invent out of whole cloth what you think someone means, but on the other you have to be aware that everyone exists in their own contexts which may be different than your own. You don't want to unquestioningly assume intent, but why someone says what they're saying shapes what they mean by it. Two parties could essentially be speaking different languages as the meaning conveyed is not the meaning intended, and that's not going to get anyone anywhere. Granted, someone could be a douchebag who can't even comprehend that other people have like their own thoughts and stuff, but perhaps one ought to aim for understanding even if agreement is impossible.

But anyway, see I'd use "actually" to mean, "Aha! Here's this fact for you to think about of which I think you're apparently unaware. As learning new things and thinking about them is fun, hooray for a fun new fact!", but I could also see someone meaning, "Oh, you poor, ignorant savage. Let me demonstrate my superiority by bestowing onto you the gift of my wisdom". I just mean, "Ooh, new fact!", so please don't crucify me as a douchebag.

[Knaight]

Oh! I see. We are comming from two different usages here. I get the logistical sense, and that's fine. I was considering the socioligical usage. Like the implication that something that offends you is indicitive of a problem with society as a whole.

"The way that so-and-so character in this media dresses is problematic. "

It's routinely used for things people like though, and is vastly more likely to appear in a context along the lines of "Yeah, the depictions of X, Y, and Z are problematic, but I still like the thing". Even when not used for things liked, it's generally used as an incredibly minor criticism by people being cautious about things other people like that they still have at least some small degree of respect for.

[Lethologica]

this food is problematic
*runs away*

[goto124]

To be fair the way that character dresses is definitely not appropriate.

I think that it's not so much condescension as it establishing a framework for a discussion. You would probably follow up with the reasons you believed it to be problematic, and that would be useful for discussion. If it's being used outside of that context it's presumptive, but I would say inherently condescending.

I rarely see the word 'problematic' in the context of a discussion, and even then, discussion doesn't stop there - it's but a small part of the explanation of why something is an issue aka 'problematic'.

For example, if someone were to say "the design of this character's clothes is problematic", it'll be followed by a long explanation picking out the problematic parts of the clothes design that align with and encourage gender stereotypes.

EDIT:

What non-condescending contexts are there for "who do you think you are"?

[Jormengand]

What non-condescending contexts are there for "who do you think you are"?

Amnesia or dissociative disorders.

"You don't know who you are, but who do you think you are?"

[AMFV]

What non-condescending contexts are there for "who do you think you are"?

"Who do you think you are?" Isn't typically that condescending, typically it's used as a response to somebody doing something that you think is outrageously inappropriate. It can be a form of condescension if that person is doing something that you would consider appropriate for you. But I would use that expression when somebody does something like, for example, goes on my property and cuts plants and weeds, or when somebody comments on my financial situation without being asked. That would be the type of scenario where I would see that being used. It's not really condescension in those cases, but a response to offensive and inappropriate behavior.

[Heliomance]

What non-condescending contexts are there for "Just who do you think you are"?

FTFY.

^Also, FTFY can often be extremely condescending.

[Wardog]

I rarely see the word 'problematic' in the context of a discussion, and even then, discussion doesn't stop there - it's but a small part of the explanation of why something is an issue aka 'problematic'.

For example, if someone were to say "the design of this character's clothes is problematic", it'll be followed by a long explanation picking out the problematic parts of the clothes design that align with and encourage gender stereotypes.

I don't think it's condesending as such, but I'm not a fan of "problematic" in that context.

I often see it used in situations like that (e.g. in opinion pieces in the Guardian and the like), but it just seems to me to be often a particularly worthless word, that doesn't add any useful informtion to the discussion. In most cases, you could just omit the phrase "This is problemtic" and go straight into the explanation of why it is bad. And do I quite often see people claiming something is "problematic" without properly explaining why it is, which doesn't really tell you anything other than that theydon't like it (while implying this is a fact rather than an opinion - which I suppose could be condesending).


PS - I've just realised I've used "just" a lot in that paragraph - I hope noone takes that as condesention!

[goto124]

"Just who do you think you are?"

FTFY.

^Also, FTFY can often be extremely condescending.

Heheh. Actually, I typically hear the phrase in the form of "Who the [CENSORED] do you think you are?", and the context in which it's used gives it a meaning of "I'm the authority here, therefore I'm infinitely righter than you can ever be".

I've so far only seen FTFY used to make silly jokes that don't demean anyone. For example,

Well now I feel stupid cupid.

Fixed that for ya.

[AMFV]

Heheh. Actually, I typically hear the phrase in the form of "Who the [CENSORED] do you think you are?", and the context in which it's used gives it a meaning of "I'm the authority here, therefore I'm infinitely righter than you can ever be".

Again, that's not usually the way I see even the version you're stating. Usually "Who the [Bleep] do you think you are?" isn't so much an indictment of somebody's position, as it is saying that they're coming across to you as either overreaching or condescending. At least in my experience. Again, that would be something like a neighbor trespassing on my property to cut weeds they didn't' like or somebody I didn't know well saying negative things about my relations or my friends.

Generally "Who do you think you are?" is tantamount to saying "What business is this of yours," at least in my experience. Or if it's used more forcibly it's used for "This is really none of your business." I don't think I've ever seen it used to condescend. I have seen it used to say that somebody is doing something beyond the pale, like a Company Gunny yelling at a First Sergeant in public over a leave request. So I guess there might be something of social stratification to it, but generally that form is used less if you're in a less stratified culture.

[goto124]

Again, that would be something like a neighbor trespassing on my property to cut weeds they didn't' like or somebody I didn't know well saying negative things about my relations or my friends.

Fascinating! The contexts I personally have come across myself are closer to an uncle trespassing on his niece's property to cut weeds he didn't like, only for the trespassing uncle to yell "who do you think you are, I'm your senior! I know what's right!". Or a grandmother who tells awful lies to his schoolmates, then says "who do you think you are, I know what sort of people you hang out with, I have ages of wisdom", when the grandmother has met his schoolmates only once and they play 'satanic' DnD games.

[AMFV]

Fascinating! The contexts I personally have come across myself are closer to an uncle trespassing on his niece's property to cut weeds he didn't like, only for the trespassing uncle to yell "who do you think you are, I'm your senior! I know what's right!". Or a grandmother who tells awful lies to his schoolmates, then says "who do you think you are, I know what sort of people you hang out with, I have ages of wisdom", when the grandmother has met his schoolmates only once and they play 'satanic' DnD games.

I'm being 100% honest here, but that isn't the correct usage. Like it doesn't even make sense to me. The first one possibly does, and would lead to you probably being shot in many parts of the country (not if you were somebody's uncle, but you have to remember that I've lived places where trespassing is taken very seriously).

[Serpentine]

I don't think it's condesending as such, but I'm not a fan of "problematic" in that context.

I often see it used in situations like that (e.g. in opinion pieces in the Guardian and the like), but it just seems to me to be often a particularly worthless word, that doesn't add any useful informtion to the discussion. In most cases, you could just omit the phrase "This is problemtic" and go straight into the explanation of why it is bad. And do I quite often see people claiming something is "problematic" without properly explaining why it is, which doesn't really tell you anything other than that theydon't like it (while implying this is a fact rather than an opinion - which I suppose could be condesending).


PS - I've just realised I've used "just" a lot in that paragraph - I hope noone takes that as condesention!

It's not necessarily that the thing itself is bad or the person doesn't like it, though.
Example: Anne McCaffrey's first Pern book, Dragonflight, features a plotline that (arguably) amounts to "rape her 'til she loves you". That's problematic, makes it a problematic book, and is a valid subject of criticism. Rereading it, it makes me fairly uncomfortable and I can see how it potentially both reflects and reinforces certain problematic social ideas. I still like the book and love the series. It's not the only part of that book, and there's a lot else in there that's unproblematic, and that's good, and even that's really positive and productive. "Problematic" just acknowledges that it has some issues that warrant discussion or critique, and maybe improvement for next time.

Which isn't to say that there aren't almost certainly people who do use it incredibly condescendingly. But that doesn't mean it always is, nor that the term is invalid. Heck, half the time it's being used in the context of self-reflection, aimed at things the speaker really likes themselves.

[Lethologica]

I'm being 100% honest here, but that isn't the correct usage. Like it doesn't even make sense to me. The first one possibly does, and would lead to you probably being shot in many parts of the country (not if you were somebody's uncle, but you have to remember that I've lived places where trespassing is taken very seriously).

It comes up a lot in Hollywood (because conflict) and is used both the way you describe it and the way goto describes it. Both usages are correct. For example, if the speaker is responding to an invasion of personal space, it's not condescending. If he is shutting down disagreement from a perceived inferior, it is.

[drack]

I often see (or use) a closing "but that's just my opinion" as an attempt to soften the preceding argument, reminding everyone involved after what can be fairly heated debate that not everyone is going to agree and there isn't necessarily an objectively right or wrong answer - and that if people disagree with you, you might think they're wrong but you accept they have a right to hold that view.

As so often, context means a lot.

Ay, when I try to soften statements, or to carefully phrase them so as not to give offense when tackling a sensitive topic, I'm often told that I'm being condescending.


I'm gonna go with when someone starts an argument, generally with their significant other or someone they know well, generally initiating it with some long standing point of conflict, then proceeds to say that they don't want to argue, and then through repeated use of this device, attempting to verbally beat you into unwilling silent agreement with them on this issue in the future. Condescending because it suggests, like many others in this thread, that the listener's opinions are irrelevant and that only their opinions matter with regards to the issues thereby not discussed.

Another I've heard is "How about you compromise and admit she's right?"

I suppose such things might be considered slightly different from condescension, but you guys have covered allot of them, so I'm reaching here.

[Marlowe]

So what I'm getting from this thread so-far is that just about any word or phrase that even hints at anything other than slavish agreement or spittle-flecked contrariness is "condescending" to somebody; and that; like "hypocritical", it's just one of those things we'll have to be prepared to face accusations of every time we try to be polite and reasonable to people who aren't interested in politeness or reason.

[Lethologica]

Well, a fair number of people have posted examples with comments like "this isn't really condescending, as such, but I don't like it when people say it to me, so I'm going to complain about it." So this may have become a rather more generalized rant thread.

[drack]

Well, a fair number of people have posted examples with comments like "this isn't really condescending, as such, but I don't like it when people say it to me, so I'm going to complain about it." So this may have become a rather more generalized rant thread.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty fascinating to see what different people saw as condescending as well as what others thought wasn't. I figure largely it's a cultural thing, highly dependent on context, and something that it's hard to put your finger on in any generalized sense. There were a good few suggesting your inferior intellect should oblige you to agree, a few along the lines of just not wanting to hear what you have to say, and a few overly convoluted or popper words meant to do much the same. Overall it's taught us of how rampant misunderstandings run, particularly on the end of those conversing with dignified gentlemen who wish only to speak both in proper and precise terms, and to speak softly so as not to offend (who are then seen as both flaunting their intellect or ego thereof, and Who, because they're politely skirting around the issue, must be subtly trying to imply insult,) as another gentleman pointed out to us earlier in the thread. Additionally it's taught us that condescension is itself perceived as either the rising of ones self, or the lowering of another, whilst generally brushing off their opinions. ...or at least that's what I've seen to take away from it, but by all means, if you see more still to glean, or that perhaps I have mistaken a facet of the issue, I beg you, please do educate this savage brute, so dim of wit, for I do acknowledge the limits of mine own mental faculties.

...and you see, even a smack of exaggerated self-deprecation on the end, such as to ear the writer's humility, might instead be taken as great offense in that it's exaggerated nature might be to articulate a veiled sarcasm or perhaps that it might instead be meant as a slant to the reader. As I understand it, self-humbling, or other such overly precise detailing might have gone over better several centuries past, but these days men believe only in the with that is found in brevity, and neither the specification nor the eloquence found in a lengthier piece. Hence, any excessive wordiness or even a lengthier and more descriptive view of a point might then be taken to have hidden meaning, for why would one go so far, to employ so many words, only to express their humility with regards to their own intellect, or rather to suggest that that of the reader might be so much greater still? Why might one have spent a small paragraph in repeating yet slightly rephrasing the notions that could be presented in a single line? Surely it could not be for a slower and more lasting integration of the notion with thought, to fully flush out and elaborate upon it, or even give the reader time to digest before moving onward to the very next point. No, there is mischief afoot. Sinister dark mischief of ill intent!