# “You do realize”



## Burnside

You do realize that when you start a post with the phrase “You do realize”, you sound like a douche. 

Suggestion: I know this probably can’t happen, but I wish there could be a macro that automatically replaced “You do realize” with “I am beautiful” or something equally non-insufferable.


----------



## Phion

Sokka


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

People have conversational ticks. 

You do realize ....
With all due respect ....
I am sure that you know ....


Some times meaning can be unclear.

On the other hand, sometimes it is perfectly clear.

Bless your heart.


----------



## Burnside

Snarf Zagyg said:


> People have conversational ticks.
> 
> You do realize ....
> With all due respect ....
> I am sure that you know ....
> 
> 
> Some times meaning can be unclear.
> 
> On the other hand, sometimes it is perfectly clear.
> 
> Bless your heart.




Have you ever seen a post that started with "You do realize" that wasn't just as condescending as "Bless your heart"?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Burnside said:


> Have you ever seen a post that started with "You do realize" that wasn't just as condescending as "Bless your heart"?




Eh, tone can be a tricky thing with the written word, and even moreso on the internet.

Just recently, I made what I thought was a somewhat obvious reference that got several, "Well, AK-SHUALLY" responses that missed the obvious reference. Because ....

A. I don't know my audience (on the internet, my audience is all dogs); and
B. On the internet, no one can assume I am making a reference (they don't know that I'm a dog).

So I try to assume that people aren't being condescending to me, and bless their little cotton socks, and move on.


----------



## Alzrius

Phion said:


> Sokka




You do realize that the proper _romaji_ is "sou ka"?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Alzrius said:


> You do realize that the proper _romaji_ is "sou ka"?




You do realize that the Flaming Lips are awesome?


----------



## Phion

Alzrius said:


> You do realize that the proper _romaji_ is "sou ka"?



You do realize that I am bit of an idiot?


----------



## BookBarbarian

Things I've tried to remove from my talking/writing habits

"Actually,"
"You do realize"
"Everyone knows"

Every sentence I've ever started with these phrases could have had them removed and kept the exact meaning of the sentence without sounding like an a-hole


----------



## Bawylie

BookBarbarian said:


> Things I've tried to remove from my talking/writing habits
> 
> "Actually,"
> "You do realize"
> "Everyone knows"
> 
> Every sentence I've ever started with these phrases could have had them removed and kept the exact meaning of the sentence without sounding like an a-hole



Removing “actually” is wonderful. 

“Actually” is a terrible word and a worse convention. I’ve never once said or heard an “actually” that added anything to conversation. 

“You DO realize... right?” is another conversational wet blanket. I won’t tell you _what_ I realize when someone says it. 

Oh, and arguing the example/analogy instead of the point. I hate that one too. Practically makes metaphor worthless and almost always invites an “actually.” I can make fart noises on my own, thanks. 

Now, I’m not gonna say I don’t ever do these things. I’m as awful as the next person. I try to avoid this crap, though, so if you catch me slipping, please feel free.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Phion said:


> You do realize that I am bit of an idiot?



You do realize that your heart has been blessed?


----------



## CleverNickName

Other red flags that I've come across...

"To be honest..."  (as opposed to, what?)
"I'm sorry but..." (..._but _you aren't really apologizing.)
"If I can play the devil's advocate..." (No.  The devil doesn't need advocacy.)
"I don't wanna sound ____ but..." (...but I'm gonna anyway.)


----------



## Bawylie

CleverNickName said:


> Other red flags that I've come across...
> 
> "To be honest..."  (as opposed to, what?)
> "I'm sorry but..." (..._but _you aren't really apologizing.)
> "If I can play the devil's advocate..." (No.  The devil doesn't need advocacy.)
> "I don't wanna sound ____ but..." (...but I'm gonna anyway.)



“Big Yikes”
You just posted cringe 
“Oof”


----------



## Asisreo

Bawylie said:


> Removing “actually” is wonderful.
> 
> “Actually” is a terrible word and a worse convention. I’ve never once said or heard an “actually” that added anything to conversation.
> 
> “You DO realize... right?” is another conversational wet blanket. I won’t tell you _what_ I realize when someone says it.
> 
> Oh, and arguing the example/analogy instead of the point. I hate that one too. Practically makes metaphor worthless and almost always invites an “actually.” I can make fart noises on my own, thanks.
> 
> Now, I’m not gonna say I don’t ever do these things. I’m as awful as the next person. I try to avoid this crap, though, so if you catch me slipping, please feel free.



They're filler words like "um" or "like," without abruptly breaking the flow of conversation and making it look like you're just trying to capture your moment. 

They sometimes are prevalent in someone's life that they pick them up in speech without think, then they'll apply it to their texts. 


As for metaphors(usually similes), I use them alot because I understand new things based on previously known things or easier to follow things easier. Raising something to a power is like multiplying it a number of times equal to those many times. I know how to multiply 3 by itself 3 times, so 3^3 is easy to understand and I get a basic understanding. There's some nuances, though. It doesn't make sense to multiply 3 by itself 2.5 times yet 3^2.5 exists. 

So a metaphor isn't meant to substitute the required knowledge being given, it's to create a basis for the new information. In the case of discussion, a basis to be shared. "Asking a person to dodge a bullet is like asking a monkey to fly." The basis to be shared is that asking something to do an impossible action is ridiculous. We know asking a monkey to fly is ridiculous but we're establishing that it's a similar premise. It doesn't really work for this metaphor for the reason that there's no real reason to establish a similarity (we probably also know how ridiculous it is to ask a person to dodge a bullet) and the I don't have a point to establishing the basis. I'm saying it's ridiculous but not saying why, and saying it's ridiculous in more words, too. 

Which is why metaphors must be used carefully in a discussion. The connection needs to be both clear and relevant and needs to have an actual point, otherwise people will be stuck on the fact that "nobody is asking a monkey to fly in the first place."


----------



## Asisreo

CleverNickName said:


> Other red flags that I've come across...
> 
> "To be honest..."  (as opposed to, what?)
> "I'm sorry but..." (..._but _you aren't really apologizing.)
> "If I can play the devil's advocate..." (No.  The devil doesn't need advocacy.)
> "I don't wanna sound ____ but..." (...but I'm gonna anyway.)



I'm sorry but to be honest, I don't wanna sound like I'm playing the devil's advocate but actually, you just posted big yikes cringe. Oof.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Asisreo said:


> I'm sorry but to be honest, I don't wanna sound like I'm playing the devil's advocate but actually, you just posted big yikes cringe. Oof.



Multiple


----------



## aco175

alright, alright, alright...


----------



## Bawylie

Asisreo said:


> They're filler words like "um" or "like," without abruptly breaking the flow of conversation and making it look like you're just trying to capture your moment.
> 
> They sometimes are prevalent in someone's life that they pick them up in speech without think, then they'll apply it to their texts.
> 
> 
> As for metaphors(usually similes), I use them alot because I understand new things based on previously known things or easier to follow things easier. Raising something to a power is like multiplying it a number of times equal to those many times. I know how to multiply 3 by itself 3 times, so 3^3 is easy to understand and I get a basic understanding. There's some nuances, though. It doesn't make sense to multiply 3 by itself 2.5 times yet 3^2.5 exists.
> 
> So a metaphor isn't meant to substitute the required knowledge being given, it's to create a basis for the new information. In the case of discussion, a basis to be shared. "Asking a person to dodge a bullet is like asking a monkey to fly." The basis to be shared is that asking something to do an impossible action is ridiculous. We know asking a monkey to fly is ridiculous but we're establishing that it's a similar premise. It doesn't really work for this metaphor for the reason that there's no real reason to establish a similarity (we probably also know how ridiculous it is to ask a person to dodge a bullet) and the I don't have a point to establishing the basis. I'm saying it's ridiculous but not saying why, and saying it's ridiculous in more words, too.
> 
> Which is why metaphors must be used carefully in a discussion. The connection needs to be both clear and relevant and needs to have an actual point, otherwise people will be stuck on the fact that "nobody is asking a monkey to fly in the first place."



LoL, nice

Oh but that reminds me of another one:
Person 1: “I don’t care for X”
Person 2: “oh you don’t like X? Well X! X X X!”


----------



## Eltab

You do realize that I'm trying to cast _Enhanced Intelligence_ on you when I say that, don't you?  It's actually for your own good.

What do you mean, "That only exists in the game" ?


----------



## Asisreo

Bawylie said:


> LoL, nice
> 
> Oh but that reminds me of another one:
> Person 1: “I don’t care for X”
> Person 2: “oh you don’t like X? Well X! X X X!”



Man, that would annoy me so much that I'd probably give that person 10 dollars via Patreon and call them extremely pretty. That would definitely show those people with their messing around and their cracking jokes.


----------



## DammitVictor

If you found a way to measure all of the unwarranted pedantry on the Internet, the concentration of it on this forum alone would be statistically significant-- and likely the source of many future scientific studies.

Likewise, if half of the condescending, pedantic jackasses on this forum were _half as smart_ as they are smug, Morrus would starve to death in his house because of all the Nobels and Pulitzers burying his front door. There would be no more "orc discourse" or "Satanic panic" for us to argue about, because the newest edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_ would have cured racism, crime, and cancer.

Your pet peeve is "you do realize..." and all of @CleverNickName 's list of red flags... well, until the day I die, my pet peeve is going to be grown-ass men who think pretending they're too stupid to understand an argument from an 8th-grade civics class makes them _look smarter _than the person trying to explain it to them.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

You do realize, that when you create a thread based on mocking the community, they will use that repeatedly on you, right?


----------



## Todd Roybark

Bawylie said:


> Actually” is a terrible word and a worse convention. I’ve never once said or heard an “actually” that added anything to conversation.



I use "actually" quite a bit, alas.  For me the word is an alternative to typing out the phrase "In my lived experience".
So if someone wrote, for example: "No one thinks the Bane spell is better then the Bless spell"
I likely would respond with something like this: "actually, I really like the Bane spell".

Bawylie, your posts come across to me, as very polite and considerate, so does the use of the word "actually" in the above example, connote something to you other then conveying:
"In my lived experience" ?


CleverNickName said:


> Other red flags that I've come across...
> "To be honest..."  (as opposed to, what?)
> "I'm sorry but..." (..._but _you aren't really apologizing.)
> "If I can play the devil's advocate..." (No.  The devil doesn't need advocacy.)
> "I don't wanna sound ____ but..." (...but I'm gonna anyway.)




I thought my posts oft irk CleverNickName, and now I can see why.
I use similar variations of most of those phrases.

As a person that received an autism spectrum diagnosis in my 40's, there are specific reasons why I use these phrases.

"To be honest" is meant to connote sincerity.  I have my whole life been told that my use of language is more formal then what is typically considered normal.  Like many people on the autism spectrum, I've come to accept that my emotional affect, is expressed in more muted tones than others. A "robot" like affect turns people off.  Not liking to make eye contact turns people off, and makes them doubt your sincerity.

My use of the phrase "To be honest" is me saying, I'm not gaslighting you.  I'm not playing rhetorical games....I'm being sincere..truly sincere...even if my mannerisms would typically fall into a category of behaviors that many, including the FBI, characterize as indicators of deception.

"I'm sorry but..." is me saying..."I disagree with your factual position, but not with you as a person, nor your right to hold an opposing view"......when you are a child with a robotic emotional affect...apologizing in advance, trying to deescalate with your literal words what you can't through tone, smiling, nor eye contact...is a survival technique....spares you a beating..(hopefully).

"If I may play devils advocate" is just indicating that I see an opposing viewpoint that can be argued. Generally, for myself, it also connotes that I am not emotionally attached to the position that I am delineating. It is a point made for factual completeness.....being inaccurate, not examining all avenues of inquiry on a topic bothers me in a way that could be considered OCD like.
Sadly, I often do this, whilst missing the behavioral cues the other person is sending that we are having a conversation dealing with emotion, and not fact.  I work hard at trying to not do this, but I fail at this, so very much.  I liken it to a person whom cannot see the color green, trying to navigate an art piece that only consists of the color green.

I don't think I use the last example of CleverNickName's...though, (admittedly), I will often write
"Politely" and then offer a differing view.  It is not to gaslight anyone, nor acting as social cover to be outright rude.  It is _trying to signal_, that while I might be coming off as rude, or trying to gaslight...I truly am not trying to.  Sadly, I am a very literal person, vis a vis my word choice, and could not bluff to save my life.

Sorry for the long post. I also apologize for any distress, or irritations my mannerisms might create.


----------



## Bawylie

Todd Roybark said:


> I use "actually" quite a bit, alas.  For me the word is an alternative to typing out the phrase "In my lived experience".
> So if someone wrote, for example: "No one thinks the Bane spell is better then the Bless spell"
> I likely would respond with something like this: "actually, I really like the Bane spell".
> 
> Bawylie, your posts come across to me, as very polite and considerate, so does the use of the word "actually" in the above example, connote something to you other then conveying:
> "In my lived experience" ?
> 
> 
> I thought my posts oft irk CleverNickName, and now I can see why.
> I use similar variations of most of those phrases.
> 
> As a person that received an autism spectrum diagnosis in my 40's, there are specific reasons why I use these phrases.
> 
> "To be honest" is meant to connote sincerity.  I have my whole life been told that my use of language is more formal then what is typically considered normal.  Like many people on the autism spectrum, I've come to accept that my emotional affect, is expressed in more muted tones than others. A "robot" like affect turns people off.  Not liking to make eye contact turns people off, and makes them doubt your sincerity.
> 
> My use of the phrase "To be honest" is me saying, I'm not gaslighting you.  I'm not playing rhetorical games....I'm being sincere..truly sincere...even if my mannerisms would typically fall into a category of behaviors that many, including the FBI, characterize as indicators of deception.
> 
> "I'm sorry but..." is me saying..."I disagree with your factual position, but not with you as a person, nor your right to hold an opposing view"......when you are a child with a robotic emotional affect...apologizing in advance, trying to deescalate with your literal words what you can't through tone, smiling, nor eye contact...is a survival technique....spares you a beating..(hopefully).
> 
> "If I may play devils advocate" is just indicating that I see an opposing viewpoint that can be argued. Generally, for myself, it also connotes that I am not emotionally attached to the position that I am delineating. It is a point made for factual completeness.....being inaccurate, not examining all avenues of inquiry on a topic bothers me in a way that could be considered OCD like.
> Sadly, I often do this, whilst missing the behavioral cues the other person is sending that we are having a conversation dealing with emotion, and not fact.  I work hard at trying to not do this, but I fail at this, so very much.  I liken it to a person whom cannot see the color green, trying to navigate an art piece that only consists of the color green.
> 
> I don't think I use the last example of CleverNickName's...though, (admittedly), I will often write
> "Politely" and then offer a differing view.  It is not to gaslight anyone, nor acting as social cover to be outright rude.  It is _trying to signal_, that while I might be coming off as rude, or trying to gaslight...I truly am not trying to. Sadly, I am a very literal person, vis a vis my word choice, and could not bluff to save my life.
> 
> Sorry for the long post. I also apologize for any distress, or irritations my mannerisms might create.



Thank you for the kind words. 

I don’t object to “actually” as a substitute for “in my opinion” or “in my lived experience.” But, we rarely need to say “in my opinion,” when giving an opinion. Preferences and opinions don’t need qualifiers because there’s no real debate over taste. 

I object to “actually” when it’s an unnecessary or superfluous correction; a qualifier with pointless levels of precision, specificity, or pedagogy that interrupts the flow or exchange of ideas. 

Please note I’m talking about unneeded specificity. If we’re flying to the moon and I’m going the wrong way, I’ll need someone to say “Actually that’s wrong, turn it around or you’ll burn up our fuel.” No, I mean the ‘actually’ that happens when we’re sharing a story and I’ll describe something as blue or whatever and then the offender will say “actually it was Navy.” Or “I rolled an 18 and killed the last hobgoblin!” “Actually it was a bugbear and you rolled a 17.”

In these examples, the Actually interjection is technically correct but conversationally worthless. They don’t deepen any understanding or appreciation of the main point, they don’t add any drama, humor, or perspective, and they don’t invite response or commentary in a productive direction. 

And that’s why I hate when I do it. Because instead of saying something cool or interesting or even worth thinking about or hearing, all I contribute is wet blanket corrective. “Actually, we didn’t park AT Disneyland. We parked two blocks south at the park and took a bus the rest of the way. It was $5.” Who freaking cares? The story is about going to Disneyland where I parked isn’t worth a second of your time!


----------



## DammitVictor

Bawylie said:


> I don’t object to “actually” as a substitute for “in my opinion” or “in my lived experience.” But, we rarely need to say “in my opinion,” when giving an opinion. Preferences and opinions don’t need qualifiers because there’s no real debate over taste.




I feel like this is grossly inconsistent with my own lived experience of this forum. I've found that I can't make any declarative statement on any topic more subjective than _mathematical axioms _without some smarmy poindexter springing from his bed in the middle of the night to login and remind me that what I said was _just my opinion_.

Even when, you know, it actually wasn't.

There needs to be a name for the geek fallacy that the only facts anyone can know for certain are facts that agree with one's own position. It's a curious form of epistemology.


----------



## Umbran

Bawylie said:


> I don’t object to “actually” as a substitute for “in my opinion” or “in my lived experience.” But, we rarely need to say “in my opinion,” when giving an opinion. Preferences and opinions don’t need qualifiers because there’s no real debate over taste.




Unfortunately, lots of people state, and defend, their opinions as facts.  And statements without the qualifier are not textually distinguishable statements of facts.  We must _infer_ that the author knows and intends their statement to be merely opinion.  Do you really want people to be inferring without support?

There is a point here about saying what you mean - "in my opinion" makes the intent clear. Why argue against clarity?



> I object to “actually” when it’s an unnecessary or superfluous correction; a qualifier with pointless levels of precision, specificity, or pedagogy that interrupts the flow or exchange of ideas.




What is and is not necessary is often a matter of opinion.


----------



## Bawylie

FaerieGodfather said:


> I feel like this is grossly inconsistent with my own lived experience of this forum. I've found that I can't make any declarative statement on any topic more subjective than _mathematical axioms _without some smarmy poindexter springing from his bed in the middle of the night to login and remind me that what I said was _just my opinion_.
> 
> Even when, you know, it actually wasn't.
> 
> There needs to be a name for the geek fallacy that the only facts anyone can know for certain are facts that agree with one's own position. It's a curious form of epistemology.



I understand what you mean. Part of my point is to draw a distinction between Good conversation that all parties engage in good faith, with a nice exchange of concepts and an openness to alternate views and Bad conversations that are mostly poo-flinging (like the kind we often see on the internet). I concede that the border between good and bad conversations can get hazy. 

And there is no shortage of smarmy poindexters! Of course we all believe our opinions are the correct ones. Why on earth would I ever hold an opinion I believed was wrong? And likewise there are a lot of people who use motivated reasoning to support their beliefs. That’s a very human thing to do. (I think there’s some research suggesting that the smarter you are, the better you are able to convince yourself that your beliefs and opinions are correct and that’s weirdly neat because even the big brained are like the rest of us, fundamentally). 

Anyway, when I’m talking about “we rarely need to say an opinion is an opinion” I mean that for good conversations. Because “well, that’s just like your opinion, man” isn’t too terribly engaging and often marks the boundary in the exchange where you can exempt yourself from further discussion because it’s veering toward Bad Lands. 

So I find i have better conversations when I stop “actually”-ing and when I don’t get into dumb-dumb arguments over opinions, (or examples and analogies, for that matter).


----------



## Bawylie

Umbran said:


> There is a point here about saying what you mean - "in my opinion" makes the intent clear. Why argue against clarity?
> 
> What is and is not necessary is often a matter of opinion.




I didn’t argue against clarity. I argue for adopting the most charitable interpretation of someone else’s point. 

I also don’t set any rules for anyone else’s behavior. Because I only govern myself, I try to stop doing things to others that annoy me when they are done to me and to engage with others the way I’d want them to engage with me. Obviously I don’t always succeed, but I try. 

Even still, a good “in my experience” is no inoculation to a bad inference. I’ve seen a poster talk about their experiences at their own game table only for someone else to respond “That’s Your table. Are you saying your experiences are universal? Because they’re not!” And “Just because you have no problem with something doesn’t mean nobody else has a problem with it.” All kinds of crap that person never said. 

When I anticipate that, I put in a disclaimer: “I’m talking about my own games at my own table. I am not making any judgments about anyone else’s games which I am sure are delightful.” I’ve also used “I feel no obligation to defend your hallucination of my point” as a response when I’m taken in very bad faith. But I’ve been trying not to use that one lately and instead assume I wasn’t sufficiently clear.


----------



## Umbran

Bawylie said:


> I didn’t argue against clarity. I argue for adopting the most charitable interpretation of someone else’s point.




Right, but...



> I also don’t set any rules for anyone else’s behavior. Because I only govern myself, I try to stop doing things to others that annoy me when they are done to me and to engage with others the way I’d want them to engage with me. Obviously I don’t always succeed, but I try.




And, that's great that you do that.  

Now, in your own human experience, how often is that done on the internet?  And, what does it say about how charitable one should be in interpreting the words of others?

It would seem to me that the onus should be on the writer to say what they actually mean, rather than putting the onus on the reader to interpret in a charitable manner... just to save the author having to write a few words to clarify.



> Even still, a good “in my experience” is no inoculation to a bad inference. I’ve seen a poster talk about their experiences at their own game table only for someone else to respond “That’s Your table. Are you saying your experiences are universal? Because they’re not!” And “Just because you have no problem with something doesn’t mean nobody else has a problem with it.” All kinds of crap that person never said.




So, this is clearly context dependent - there's a basic question of why the author is mentioning their personal experience.  Every communication has a purpose.  So, what is the purpose of stating the personal experience?

How often is that experinece mentioned but _not_ intended as the basis of some conclusion?


----------



## Bawylie

“It would seem to me that the onus should be on the writer to say what they actually mean, rather than putting the onus on the reader to interpret in a charitable manner... just to save the author having to write a few words to clarify.”

-This is why I take it on myself as an author to be clear and as a reader to be generous. I can place no onus on anyone but myself. And I do that so I can aim myself at being a better person, not “just to save the author having to write a few words.” I don’t feel I can fairly blame someone else for my own ignorance either. A focus on authorial intent to the exclusion of personal interpretation is counterproductive. I like some measure of both rather than disclaiming any personal responsibility at all.

“Now, in your own human experience, how often is that done on the internet? And, what does it say about how charitable one should be in interpreting the words of others?”

-I don’t know how often it’s done. (I’d say “not as much as it should be”). But if I want it to be done more, then I should directly contribute to that effort myself and recognize when others do it too.

-edit: not good at multi-quote, sorry


----------



## Mistwell

Burnside said:


> Have you ever seen a post that started with "You do realize" that wasn't just as condescending as "Bless your heart"?




I have used "you do realize" in a humorous way. "You do realize there is only one beer left and I am going to have to be the unfortunate soul who consumes it to save you your figure, right?"

Shoot half of what I post is meant in a humorous way, and sometimes mistaken for a serious tone. Which is on me, but I swear it's just my poor writing!


----------



## Lanefan

Bawylie said:


> ... the smarter you are, the better you are able to convince yourself that your beliefs and opinions are correct ...



I guess I must be pretty smart then, 'cause my beliefs and opinions are _always_ correct...

...now I just need to convince the rest of you...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Lanefan said:


> I guess I must be pretty smart then, 'cause my beliefs and opinions are _always_ correct...
> 
> ...now I just need to convince the rest of you...



Good luck with that


----------



## Todd Roybark

Umbran said:


> It would seem to me that the onus should be on the writer to say what they actually mean, rather than putting the onus on the reader to interpret in a charitable manner... just to save the author having to write a few words to clarify.



It is more than _"Just a few words"_ to satisfy the quibbles and nitpicks, that constitute a large part of this board's culture, and mode of behaving towards each other.

The amount of times I've written a post as voluminous and dense as Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, to satisfy all the quibbles I expect to come, only to find the thread has advanced by 3 pages in the meantime, are legion.

The pedantic culture on this board, is largely the preferences of the posters, but also in part the "style guide" suggestions of the Moderation staff.

Does feeling like one has to write a mini D&D doctoral thesis for each post, increase our enjoyment?

To quote an average joe, (until he picks up his guitar), "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"

*I appreciate the hard work the ENworld staff does.*
When I look at events in the world today, two words leap to mind: Paradigm Shift.

Yet when, people at ENWorld suggest changes, the answer "No" comes, seemingly, reflexively.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

But I use these words specifically to sound condescending...

Actually.


----------



## jayoungr

CleverNickName said:


> Other red flags that I've come across...
> 
> "To be honest..."  (as opposed to, what?)
> "I'm sorry but..." (..._but _you aren't really apologizing.)
> "If I can play the devil's advocate..." (No.  The devil doesn't need advocacy.)



Wow, I use those all the time.  To me, they all have specific meanings.

"To be honest" = "I'm going to lay it all out, so apologies if this sounds a little blunt."

"I'm sorry, but" = "I'm going to say something a little bit personal about your tastes/opinions, which I normally wouldn't do, so I'm sorry about that, but I feel like this is a point that needs to be made."

"If I can play the devil's advocate" = "I don't necessarily _believe_ the argument I'm about to make, but let's give it a spin just for the sake of seeing where it leads."

The implication of apology in the first two may be linked to me being a midwesterner?


----------



## Mistwell

CleverNickName said:


> "If I can play the devil's advocate..." (No.  The devil doesn't need advocacy.)




Yes, it does. There are incredibly important critical thinking benefits from someone in the room playing devil's advocate if nobody is taking up a counter-argument to a topic sometimes. 

It's why if you take a college debate course or critical thinking course one of the earliest things your professor is likely to ask you to do is to argue the opposite side from that which you naturally support. And one reason why the professor is giving you a counter-argument to topics students raise in class even if that professor doesn't personally believe in that argument in almost any liberal arts class.  What the heck would philosophy even look like if nobody took up the causes they didn't naturally agree with to test them?

I am kinda shocked someone would argue AGAINST people playing devil's advocate. We should want more of that, not less. If you're never doing it, why are you not challenging your own pre-conceived notions with a test of having to advocate against them to see if they hold up?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

You do realize, actually, that the Devil’s Advocate was once a position in the Catholic Church held by a canon lawyer; a.k.a. formally as The Promoter of the Faith.









						Devil's advocate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:


> I am kinda shocked someone would argue AGAINST people playing devil's advocate.




Because, Mistwell, what you describe above is not how it is commonly used these days in public discussion.

In order to properly play the role of Devil's Advocate constructively, the speaker must first be trusted to not be a bad actor.  The Devil's Advocate must be scrupulously honest, and be interested in exploration of the topic, not personally invested in holding the position, and willing to cede various points (and the case) if their argument fails. 

I expect most people's experience with a Devil's Advocate is more likely with a form of sealion in Advocate's clothing.


----------



## Imaculata

From now on I will strictly use the phrase:

"Surely you've reached the same conclusion as my superior intellect, that..."


----------



## ccs

CleverNickName said:


> "To be honest..."  (as opposed to, what




As opposed to truely holding some of opinions, stances & practices you read of in threads?


----------



## Mistwell

Umbran said:


> Because, Mistwell, what you describe above is not how it is commonly used these days in public discussion.
> 
> In order to properly play the role of Devil's Advocate constructively, the speaker must first be trusted to not be a bad actor.  The Devil's Advocate must be scrupulously honest, and be interested in exploration of the topic, not personally invested in holding the position, and willing to cede various points (and the case) if their argument fails.
> 
> I expect most people's experience with a Devil's Advocate is more likely with a form of sealion in Advocate's clothing.




Could be.

But I also think sealion has become a pet term around here lately which is overused and being applied to some genuine devil's advocacy or just plain real dissent because it's easier than addressing the dissent. If you assume your dissenter is acting in bad faith (without exploring to find out if that is the case) you don't need to question your own position. And the more you dismiss dissent, the easier it becomes to dismiss even more dissent in the future, until you just assume most dissent is bad faith and stop looking to any external reason to question your position.

In addition, sometimes it doesn't matter if the dissent is bad faith, provided the arguments get you to question your own position in meaningful ways. If someone gets you to improve your viewpoint and means of communicating it, that's a good thing even if their intent wasn't good.

I find it much wiser to assume dissenters are genuine, and only dismiss them after proven otherwise and found to be not helpful to you.


----------



## CleverNickName

jayoungr said:


> Wow, I use those all the time.  To me, they all have specific meanings.
> 
> "To be honest" = "I'm going to lay it all out, so apologies if this sounds a little blunt."
> 
> "I'm sorry, but" = "I'm going to say something a little bit personal about your tastes/opinions, which I normally wouldn't do, so I'm sorry about that, but I feel like this is a point that needs to be made."
> 
> "If I can play the devil's advocate" = "I don't necessarily _believe_ the argument I'm about to make, but let's give it a spin just for the sake of seeing where it leads."
> 
> The implication of apology in the first two may be linked to me being a midwesterner?



I am also a midwesterner (transplanted to the Pacific Northwest about 15 years ago), and it's probably a cultural thing like you suggest.  But the more I think about it, the more I think my personal problems with these phrases lie with how I parse them.  I'm not neurotypical, you see, and my brain works in a very literal and analytical fashion.  It's why I'm an engineer and scientist, and not a public speaker.   I'm very much a "words have meanings" type of person.

So when someone starts a sentence with "I'm sorry" I try to read that as an apology, and if they follow it with the word "but" it switches to an exception.  The phrase "I'm sorry _but_" then reads as a deception or misdirection.  "I realize what I did was wrong, but I'm not going to apologize for it."  It would be less condescending to just say "Don't take this the wrong way..."

The word "but" trips me up a lot in conversation, now that I think about it.  Some people sprinkle their sentences and phrases with that word a lot, but my brain reads language like a math equation or computer code and every time it hits that "but" it reverses polarity.  Like someone sprinkling negative integers into a math equation.  "I'm sorry _but_" = I'm not sorry.  "I don't want to sound __ _but_" = I want to sound that way.  "I agree _but_" = I don't really agree.  "I love hamburgers _but_" = I don't like hamburgers at all. It's very confusing to follow sometimes.

And likewise, when someone says "to be honest," my brain immediately wants to know why the speaker felt the need to clarify that this particular statement as honest, and I begin to wonder about the honesty of everything else that was stated up to that point.  It flags the speaker as untrustworthy. "Oh _now _he's being honest?  Why did he start now?"  It doesn't help that this statement is also only ever used for opinions, not facts.  "I know this is just my opinion, but it's very important for my argument that you agree, so I'm going to flag it as _honest _and see if it slides past."  In both cases, it would just be better to say "In my opinion..."

These are just little linguistic tics that my brain has.  I've learned to deal with them, but they still make my eye twitch from time to time and make it harder for me to understand stuff sometimes.

But it's not entirely my brain's fault.  The "devil's advocate" statement will always and forever read as "I am a jerk who always wants to argue."  Maybe that wasn't always the case, but it certainly is now in the Age of the Internet.  Folks who declare themselves the devil's advocate in a discussion aren't trying to engage in meaningful discourse, they are only trying to express a caustic point of view while insulating themselves from negative criticism or backlash.  "Hey, don't be mad at me, _I'm just playing the devil's advocate _here..."  Ugh, nobody needs that.   It would be better to just spit it out and let the chips fall where they may.  "Have you considered..."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> Because, Mistwell, what you describe above is not how it is commonly used these days in public discussion.
> 
> In order to properly play the role of Devil's Advocate constructively, the speaker must first be trusted to not be a bad actor.  The Devil's Advocate must be scrupulously honest, and be interested in exploration of the topic, not personally invested in holding the position, and willing to cede various points (and the case) if their argument fails.
> 
> I expect most people's experience with a Devil's Advocate is more likely with a form of sealion in Advocate's clothing.



The Devil’s Sealion it is, then!


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:


> But I also think sealion has become a pet term around here lately which is overused and being applied to some genuine devil's advocacy or just plain real dissent because it's easier than addressing the dissent.




I am sure it is mis-attributed from time to time, but really, not all that much, at least not here.

Sealioning is a form of harassment.  It is using a veneer of civility to _claim a right_ to continue to get engagement from the target*. An honest dissenter or honest Devil's Advocate, when told to stop... will stop. Rare indeed is there a person here who will disengage when asked to before Red Text comes out.

Dissension does not _entitle_ you (generic you, not Mistwell in particular) to engagement with any particular person or discussion.  If you badger, insist that it is "just an honest question" or that you are "just playing Devil's Advocate" as a way to justify your unwanted presence in a conversation, the situation is not honest.  Your disagreement may be genuine, but your mode of engagement is not.

A truly honest Devil's Advocate will ask, "May I play Devil's advocate here," and wait for consent before continuing.  It should be set up before engaging, not as an excuse afterwards, and is entirely unnecessary in a space that already has several dissenters.



*"It is just an honest question! Why won't you answer it?"


----------



## raysosher

These kind of lines are meant to be spoken not written as the tone is everything that holds the meaning of it.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> Dissension does not _entitle_ you (generic you, not Mistwell in particular) to engagement with any particular person or discussion.  If you badger, insist that it is "just an honest question" or that you are "just playing Devil's Advocate" as a way to justify your unwanted presence in a conversation, the situation is not honest.



To speak bluntly for a moment: if dissension - in its many forms - isn't wanted in a discussion then it's no longer a discussion.  It's an echo chamber.

Echo chambers are bad things.



> Your disagreement may be genuine, but your mode of engagement is not.
> 
> A truly honest Devil's Advocate will ask, "May I play Devil's advocate here," and wait for consent before continuing.



And if the consent doesn't come, then what?  All you're left with is another denial of dissension, even if in the case of the DA that dissension is purely theoretical.

It is - or should be, anyway - perfectly acceptable to speak* from a stance which you do not actually hold, in furtherance of discussion.

* - provided such speech is not hateful etc.


----------



## CleverNickName

Lanefan said:


> And if the consent doesn't come, then what?



Then the discussion doesn't happen.  Or rather, it _can't _happen, because discussion requires mutual participation.  One must be willing to speak, and another must be willing to listen.  If all I have is a speaker with no willing listeners, I have noise.  If all I have are listeners and no willing speakers, I have silence.  A dialogue must be built, and building something takes cooperation.

It took me (an embarrassing number of) years to understand that nobody owes me their attention, and some people will never, ever listen to what I have to say.  I have to be okay with that.  Maybe someone else will be able to get my message to them, or maybe they will grow to be more receptive over time, but that's on them.  Past a certain point, all I can do is drop it.


----------



## Lanefan

CleverNickName said:


> Then the discussion doesn't happen.  Or rather, it _can't _happen, because discussion requires mutual participation. One must be willing to speak, and another must be willing to listen. If all I have is a speaker with no willing listeners, I have noise. If all I have are listeners and no willing speakers, I have silence. A dialogue must be built, and building something takes cooperation.



Many very serious problems both present-day and historic are rooted in people being unwilling to listen and-or simply refusing to hear or acknowledge opinions (or facts!) with which they disagree.



> It took me (an embarrassing number of) years to understand that nobody owes me their attention, and some people will never, ever listen to what I have to say.



Which is fine, though it shouldn't stop you from saying what you're going to say and thus giving them the opportunity to not listen.

If you say it, the chance of your words being heard is greater than zero.

If you don't say it, the chance of your words being heard is exactly zero.



> I have to be okay with that.  Maybe someone else will be able to get my message to them, or maybe they will grow to be more receptive over time, but that's on them.  Past a certain point, all I can do is drop it.



Agreed.  My point is that "a certain point" should never come before trying at all.


----------



## Bagpuss

BookBarbarian said:


> Things I've tried to remove from my talking/writing habits
> 
> "Actually,"
> "You do realize"
> "Everyone knows"
> 
> Every sentence I've ever started with these phrases could have had them removed and kept the exact meaning of the sentence without sounding like an a-hole




_No offence_, but _you do realize_, that I _actually _want to sound like and a-hole on this occasions just to make it aboslutely clear that I'm having to explain to you something _everyone knows_.


----------



## Bagpuss

Umbran said:


> Dissension does not _entitle_ you (generic you, not Mistwell in particular) to engagement with any particular person or discussion.




Hmm I think if they are expressing their view on a public forum, be it somewhere like here, reddit or twitter, then you are entitled to respond on the same medium.

In most cases if they don't want to engage, they can simply ignore the person, or actually use the websites block/ignore features. 

Claiming sealioning is more for the other people watching the discussion to try and turn them against the other speaker, without addressing their point. Actual methods to protect yourself from harassment are built into most social media platforms, but don't turn the crowd against your opponent.


----------



## Campbell

In general I am here to participate in discussions. When people start engaging me as part of some side, talking about fallacies, or doing line by line rebuttals I pretty much lose interest. I am not here for arguments or debate club. I just want like normal human to human interaction.


----------



## Catulle

<Someone else's quote>

"Except..."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Campbell said:


> In general I am here to participate in discussions. When people start engaging me as part of some side, talking about fallacies, or doing line by line rebuttals I pretty much lose interest. I am not here for arguments or debate club. I just want like normal human to human interaction.



_Actually_, for some of us, that IS normal.

_raises hand_


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _Actually_, for some of us, that IS normal.
> 
> _raises hand_



Same. I'm a technical-minded person, and that comes out in my conversations.


----------



## Asisreo

I'm fine with arguments but they tend to either get too passionate or it begins to feel like you're typing into a firewall.

I have respect for what people say, but some things I read can give me conniptions. I sometimes wonder if the person I'm discussing something with fundamentally likes the game.

I try not to say anything in a thread unless I have something different to say. It may seem like I'm the contrarian in the forum, but I really only engage when my opinion is the apparent unpopular one. It doesn't win me any popularity votes, though. I guess I play my games differently than most TTRPG'ers since alot of things seem to matter to others more than they ever did to me. And things don't matter to others when they mean almost everything to me. 

I'm talkative IRL, too. So I tend to have ranty posts like how I rant irl to the dismay of my SO. One day I'll learn to end a post within 200 words, lol.

"If I had more time, I would write you a shorter letter"
-Michael Scott


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Asisreo said:


> I'm talkative IRL, too. So I tend to have ranty posts like how I rant irl to the dismay of my SO. One day I'll learn to end a post within 200 words, lol.




Strong, short, muscular statements. That is enough.

-Hemingway, probably.


----------



## Asisreo

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Strong, short, muscular statements. That is enough.
> 
> -Hemingway, probably.



Why use lot words when few words do trick!

-Michael Scott...?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Asisreo said:


> Why use lot words when few words do trick!
> 
> -Michael Scott...?




Brevity is a virtue in others.

-Herman Melville, indubitably.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Asisreo said:


> Why use lot words when few words do trick!
> 
> -Michael Scott...?



-Kevin Malone


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

“Words? Bah!  SMASH!”

-The Incredible Hulk


----------



## CleverNickName

Abraham Lincoln said:
			
		

> Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

“I saw what you did there.”

- Ray Charles


----------

