Genderwar breaks out in /r/science when somebody brings up patriarchy hurting men in a thread about 40% of boys having unwanted sexual experiences. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
126 ups - 47 downs = 79 votes
244 comments submitted at 19:31:10 on Mar 26, 2014 by lurker093287h
Sounds like a 12-year-old who wants his essay to look like a college student's.
What word is bad here? Polemic?
>"Patriarchy" is a base insult used to falsely blame societal "norms," often used by uncompromising arguers.
No individual word is bad, but it gives off a very detached feeling, as though the writer didn't want any emotion to be connected to it. It's not as dreary as corporate buzzwords, but it lacks the sting of more flavorful, albeit simpler, word choice.
> it gives off a very detached feeling, as though the writer didn't want any emotion to be connected to it.
That isn't a bad thing. For descriptive statements especially, which are intended to describe things accurately and independently of what the describer feels about it, that's a good thing.
Precise vocabulary is certainly a great thing for descriptions of physical things such as places, objects, and visualizations. However, when describing an idea, which often carry connotations with them, tearing the emotions from the denotation can reduce their impact. For example, "thrifty" and "cheap" both mean trying to use the least of something, usually money, to accomplish a task. However, "thrifty" is usually seen as a compliment, "cheap" an insult. A good explanation should also include what the populous tends to think of the word, as it helps the reader understand when and why it's used.
> However, when describing an idea, which often carry connotations with them, tearing the emotions from the denotation can reduce their impact.
The author we're referencing was using precise language to describe something they considered true with words that aided its perceived truth, not attempting to make it persuasive.
Your thrifty/cheap distinction makes a case for neutral vocabulary, not more common vocabulary.
I actually have the complete opposite reaction. "Polemic" and "championed" are great words to me, and I feel like they show more anger than simply saying used - though I do like your use of "base insult" just as much.
I don't have much experience with "polemic," but yeah, I probably would have used "wielded" in the place of the second "used." The sentence didn't need as complete a rewriting as I gave it, but I wanted to illustrate how more potent words can empower an argument.
Sounds like a college student before he figures out that it's possible to write well without using 10 SAT words/paragraph.
Why does everyone hate people using a more colorful vocabulary? Language is cool and if I took the time to expand my vocabulary is use it too. Its like if you don't use the most simplistic words possible you are some asshole.
I've noticed this a lot on SRD, but also Reddit in general. People on this site flip their respective shit at the sight of an uncommon word. I see it happen a lot when people don't have a counter point.
I once got shit for using the word "contention" because that is apparently pretentious. I invite anybody who thinks I am pretentious to cup my balderdash while they suck my poppycock.
Au revoir.
Because anyone who knows more words than someone is a nerd/overachiever and anyone knows less is stupid. Don't you know these things work?
Example I have most experience with: anyone who plays more video games than I do has no life, anyone less has a noob (especially in MMO's). Happens everywhere.
True, its just so annoying. Now I don't have that great of a vocabulary but I don't diss others who utilize a larger one, if I don't know it I happily look it up and bam a knew word added to my vocabulary. People right?
It depends where and how it's done. If I having a casual conversation at a supermarket I'm not going to drop five dollar words.
If I'm writing a paper for my college class I will use bigger words if they are needed.
The fact is using big words can stunt a sentence by making it sound clunky. It also can give the impression that the person is trying to show off, whether they mean to or not.
Use big words like salt. Not every dish needs them and try not to use to much.
There's a difference between having a "colorful vocabulary" and writing/speaking in a way that obfuscates your points in an attempt to awe the reader/listener with your intelligence.
> writing/speaking in a way that obfuscates your points in an attempt to awe the reader/listener with your intelligence.
Yes, but the quote we're talking about doesn't do that.
Obfuscate is a word that does exactly what it describes.
If the audience isn't very literate then "obscure" might have been a better choice, but it doesn't have quite the same implications.
I accede with this statement.
> I accede ~~with~~ to ...
I hear you. I've been criticized before for using "big words" to sound smart. Using a 5 dollar word doesn't automatically mean you're trying to show off.
However, their is a difference between sophisticated and intelligent speech and stilted speech. The quote definitely reads as if it was written by a kid with a new thesaurus.
Writing should be accessible. If you don't need to use a bigger word, don't use it. No one is faulting anyone if they use a "big" word that means precisely what they're trying to convey, but if it's just to make their writing "colorful" it's just unnecessary and probably inappropriate, especially in most nonfiction writing.
I think the problem is when they go out of there way to try and sound smarter, when a simpler sentence would have worked better.
It's fine having a large vocabulary. It's also fine to use it, but don't use it like a douche.
It's the difference between having a Ferrari and enjoying it and having a Ferrari, wearing Ferrari branded clothes, talking about nothing else but your car and constantly speeding or driving with it.
If you read a lot of fiction you'll notice the best writers dole out their words carefully and don't need to spew highbrow vocabulary all over everything.
There's a difference between using a lot big words to appear smart, and deliciously putting just the right word in the right spot.
Having an advanced vocabulary is awesome, but you should always be striving to write in the most clear and concise manner possible. In essence, don't use big words when simpler words will do. Personally, when I see someone excessively use advanced words, I automatically think that they're trying too hard to appear intellectual. Besides that, I go on Reddit for entertainment, so attempting to decipher an extremely complex essay is a huge pain in the ass and not worth my time (unless I'm in an academic sub like /r/science).
>(unless I'm in an academic sub like /r/science).
You mean like where the quote was found?
Yeah, I don't really have an issue with the quote itself, I was just speaking broadly using "big" words on Reddit. The only issue I had was using "polemic" when they could have used something more simple like "rant" or "attack" (just pulling synonyms from the dictionary).
I developed a bad habit of doing so because I hate using the same word too often.
For reference: "the simple minded polemic used to assign false causation to complex social phenomena, championed by gender war partisans."
None of the words in that sentence are rare or difficult if you read often. "Polemic" and "polemicist" are both words you should have already encountered going into college, nevermind completing it. "Partisan" is something you should know after a week of watching BBC news. "Causation" is a common concept in statistics and science. "Phenomena" is a word used to describe things that are observed to happen without an apparent cause.
The kind of writing you're talking about is like when someone describes a customer as a "patron", but this is not that kind of writing.
>The kind of writing you're talking about is like when someone describes a customer as a "patron", but this is not that kind of writing.
Hahaha gender war partisan! You seriously think that is not that kind of writing? Good lord, that entire sentence was an affectation.
(That's cute, though, how you defined everything.)
Your claim that this is dense writing with obscure words amounts to "it is!!", stated like you really really believe it. Adding "you seriously think" and "good lord" just increase the metaphorical font size of "YES IT IS!!"
Polemic is seriously not a rare word. Christopher Hitchens was described as this numerous times.
Partisan is used a lot, especially when talking about ideologies. There are partisan empiricists, partisan marxists, partisan naturalists and so on.
Causation is such an essential word for this discussion. Have you taken a course on (or just read about) any kind of statistics or social science? You'd know this word by now if you didn't. I don't even know how you could immerse yourself in that subject matter without it being no big deal.
"Phenomena" is essential to describe things you have observed but do not have explanations for. That is what it is standard for describing.
No one who reads what you wrote in reply has any reason to take your position.
My position? My position on...my taste in writing? It's not dense or difficult writing, it's just superfluous and like I said, an affectation. I just happen to think those are some college freshman weasel words, but, by all means, keep defining them over and over and being incredulous at me.
I read a lot of fiction and appreciate writers who love the language and use their words with care and deliberation. Writers who barf verbiage, snore. We simply disagree!
> We simply disagree!
The difference is that I've given reasons for why I disagree with you, therefore people who read what I say have reasons to accept what I've said. This is not the case with what you've said beyond "I read fiction a lot." People who read this are just supposed to trust you that this somehow translates into a big-picture understanding of vocabulary.
Yes, you defined some words and noted how they are used! Good job!
But, we're arguing about my taste in writing, remember? I'm not sure how you plan to win.
I guess I would not want to go to a dinner party given by someone who writes a sentence like that. The food would be trendy and look good, but taste pretty bad. The conversation would revolve around things like ancestral health and urban guerrilla parklets and gender war partisans, and some poor woman who talks about her kid's birthday party will get death stares for ostensibly being boring. Some guy would overhear you say you didn't like Jonathon Franzen and tirelessly go over each plot point of The Corrections while you sit there and wonder if he's trying to get laid, and if so when the last time that worked for him. It would be the most insufferable and pretentious night have you had to spend in a long time and you will want to open up a can of soda just to cause distress.
That's how that sentence makes me feel.
It's not just the students that write like that. Ever read any social science articles or textbooks? Most of them are written with overly complex language, useless jargon, and incomprehensible neologisms. Sociologists and political scientists in my experience are among the worst offenders.
You do realize that just because a simpler word could be used does nor mean that is the best word to use especially in academy. Different words with similar meanings have slight variances that matter.
As if scientific papers are immune. It's called academic language and it's designed to be read by other academics. What you call incomprehensible neologisms might simply be an attempt to accurately define something that is as yet fuzzy. Simply because it's a concept that you don't agree with or perhaps understand doesn't make it incomprehensible, it merely makes it more complex than you are fit to disseminate. But perhaps it wasn't meant for you.
Not all academic language is good, nor is it always useful to have. Ask any professor, and they'll agree that jargon and neologisms are frequently overused. Neologisms especially rankle me, since so often you can tell that the writre is just trying to coin a new term or phrase in the hopes that it will catch on, whether or not the concept presented needs one. I have no issues with well used academic language, but I've read far too many books, journals, and articles which are just written poorly, and the language of academia is used to try and obfuscate this fact.
I'm not talking about things I agree or disagree with. I'm just talking about poor, overly complex language used in some academic writings. I'm not trying to make this some kind of partisan issue.
"Academic" language isn't always the "best" language. There are plenty of instances where things that would otherwise be very simply are needlessly made complicated with jargon in order to preserve the elusion that the subject is super-duper advanced and technical. Of course, not all academic language is the product of this—some writing is necessarily complicated—but much writing done in the social sciences needlessly obfuscates the subject. The sciences should be explained in a way that is exactly as complicated as it needs to be and no more.
Or you could just say that you can't please everyone all the time and call it a day.
It's like they use words for what they mean or something.
Crazy.