Please don’t think I’m here to complain about rizz or skibidi toilet etc. Thats all fine by me.
The term I dislike strongly is ‘eeeh’ before you make a statement disagreeing with someone. (This is over text only). Now maybe I’ve been pavloved bc it’s always used by someone disagreeing. But I’m happy with people disagreeing with me normally its just the ‘eeeh’ or ‘erm’ that annoys me.
So what’s a random term that annoys you?
PS. Saying “eeeh actually ‘eeh’ is a perfectly fine term” would be a ridiculously easy joke and I will judge you for making it. And I know atleast one person will. Especially bow that I’ve said all this.
More of a grammatical mistake, but “should of” instead of “should’ve” or “should have” annoys the hell out of me for some reason. I completely get how people make the mistake, but it’s as much effort as just typing it correctly.
actually huge pet peeve when people write out erm at all. also poor public speaking really bothers me. slow, with "um"s and "so like"s, monotone. really, really makes a work meeting drag by
IM SORRY ITS MY SECOND LANGUAGE. THIRD TECHNICALLY.
tbh ive seen incredible speeches by nonnative speakers because you can feel their passion and effort. the worst presentations at work you can just feel the laziness. i get lazy too, dont get me wrong, but they drag out SO LONG. just spit it out so i can take my desk nap 😭
im still a bit salty about ‘literally’
also the constant failure to say ‘i could not care less’ correctly
I thought “I could care less” was a sarcastic way of saying “I couldn’t care less”.
I literally could not care less about literally. MANY words over time end up meaning the opposite of what they did, its just the nature of how humans use language. I love that we’ve seen this change happen right in front of us.
Eeh, you have a point, but on the other hand, if the word meaning “literally” no longer means “literally” then we need a new definitive term for the concept.
And we don’t have one. We just have a word that is becoming more ambiguous every year
I don’t appreciate the revenge 😭 (I do)
congratulations
I presume you must’ve seen em all Lucy
im just so happy you also have opinions. congrats
RIP “literally”
That never bothered me all too much. Then yesterday i watched a video on youtube to kinda doze off. Dude made some insane stuff in Minecraft. Now i usually don’t really watch these videos or Minecraft videos in general. But the production value, time and effort that went into it was beyond everything i have seen so far. The usage of the word literally kept me awake. Every time i had to flinch and at some point i had to turn it off, despite my interest.
I don’t mind people using “literally” to refer to things that they don’t literally mean because that’s just perfectly normal exaggeration.
What I hate is that the dictionary definition changed to formalize the nonliteral meaning as a literal meaning.
Bemused
It’s used incorrectly so often that even when I suspect it’s being used correctly I can’t be sure. At this point it’s ambiguity makes it a bad word choice.
What’s the correct usage? and the wrong one you’ve been hearing?
It means something in the vein of confused but people think it means amused
It means puzzled and/or confused.
Many authors seem to think it means amused mixed with some confusion or puzzlement or something else like that.
Some dictionaries have started to include definitions along those lines, which is correct to do if that is becoming a common usage. But that makes the word bullshit because it no longer conveys a clear meaning. Unlike some words that gain new meanings through misuse, it’s usually not clear which meaning is intended from context. Usually I can easily imagine a character’s response to something to be either of these definitions so I often can’t understand the author’s intention. I often find myself taken out of the story while I try to understand which meaning I should use. Because of this I think the word has become useless and shouldn’t be used.
Many authors seem to think it means amused mixed with some confusion or puzzlement or something else like that.
I actually kind of blame that abominable terf Joanne Rowling for this one; I know I’ve seen her use this word a dozen different ways that never line up with each other back in the days before we knew the Harry Potter woman was about as hateful as a southern Baptist
Me with nonplussed. I have a friend who uses it and he says it in situations that are ambiguous enough that I can’t tell if he actually knows what it means.
I had a young coworker who reported to me and a few others, for a few months earlier this year. She would come in and say ‘that being said,…’ all the fucking time. I heard it at least once or twice per brief conversation with her. I think she was just trying to sound smart… but, it was like nails on a chalk board to me.
“To be fair…”
Ironically, the phrase “rustles my jimmies” really burns my biscuits.
I like both Rustles my jimmies and burns my biscuits, although I’m not sure I’ve ever heard it
Mama, momma, mommas…
“Hey Facebook mommas, I’ve got a question about…”
I don’t know why, but it annoys the shit out of me.
I’d like to introduce to my friend Freud.
I don’t think it’s some latent psychological issue. I get along great with my mom, and I’ve never felt any resentment toward her. I’m also not bothered by words like mom, moms, mother, etc. I don’t even mind when my sons call my wife “mommy.” It’s just that one word, “momma,” that bugs me. I wish I had an explanation.
Oh no I didn’t mean that. Twas just a joke.
(I also dislike twas)
Similarly, not a fan of when teachers and parents talk about their “kiddos.”
Feels like they’re needlessly using a more playful childish term to make themselves part of a separate “in group” who “gets it.”
I hadn’t thought about that one. I occasionally use the word kiddo, but only to say, “hey kiddo!” I never use it to talk about my kids, like “we took the kiddos to the park yesterday.”
Yeah, it’s specifically the not talking to a kid version that bothers me.
I pick up a subtext of self-importance and I think that’s what I find irksome. A mom is a parent. A momma is a special parent who will do anything for their baby, you’d better watch out. A kid is a child. A kiddo is a specific child who has a close bond with their momma or teacher that you wouldn’t understand. That’s the vibe I get.
No, you don’t have a “challenge” for me. You have a problem and are trying to make it mine.
Man if that isn’t just empty manager-speak, rephrasing things to BS you and be manipulative. Lol
“Ding ding ding!” When someone agrees with something you wrote, but wants to make sure that you know that they already knew and claim ownership of the statement that you wrote. Condesending asshole. I did not arrive at your opinion late.
“Meanwhile” in cooking recipes. Just no. I am following a recipe in stepwise order. You do not get to tell me what I should have already done in the previous step.
Oooh yeah. Even saying, ‘this’.
The entire way recipes are written is trash.
“Add the flour and stir gently”: How much flour? Why do I have to scroll back up to check?!
Because the amounts can vary based on the number of servings, but the method doesn’t.
I’m doubling the amounts anyway, just give them to me in-line!
As much as I despise the fat-tongued mockney, Jamie Oliver’s website is the only one I’ve seen that has the ingredients and method on two tabs so you can flick between them
Dunno why they’re not all like that
Normally, portioning out the ingredients would be the first step of the process and is all done at once.
How many tablespoons do you think I own?
Probably not normally, but ideally. I doubt mise en place is all that common in most homes.
I see that you don’t bake much. 🙂
I bake quite a bit and I don’t do my mise-en-place either when it comes to baking, but that’s not a problem. The way recipes are formatted works well for my process as well. I read through the steps ahead of time if it’s a recipe I am unfamiliar with, then I’ll just have the ingredients list open while I’m doing the prep. The things I make are pretty basic (cookies, cakes, muffin, etc) and the steps are all identical. Mix wet, mix dry, mix everything, bake.
I personally find that having less repeated information makes things easier and faster to read. The recipe says “add flour”, you know that it’s all the flour. If the recipe says “add flour (1 cup)”, then I have to check back in the ingredients list to figure out if that’s all the flour or only part of it. Then the more info you add to clarify, the harder it is to skim while you’re cooking.
It makes sense to have the ingredients first for making a shopping list and prepping. However, I do agree, with recipes being online, it should be a small task to include the quantity in the description too, even if it is adjustable for different servings.
pretentious
“cis” I feel like it’s an extra term for “straight”. The “default” for lack of a better term (and one that isn’t othering) is near the not trans & not gay part of the gender / sexuality spectra. To me everyone in that zone is “straight” (boring/default/whatever).
“begs the question” because people exclusively use it wrong. Just say “leads to the question” or “poses the question.”
And I’m still really salty about everyone giving up on the term “literally” to allow it to mean its exact opposite.
Chaser shit. Literally, "I need to be ‘the default’ so I can exoticize somebody else". You type like a cishet white.
- There are two kinds of races, white and political.
- There are two kinds of gender identities, male and political.
- There are two kinds of sexual attractions, straight and political.
- There are two kinds of gender congruences, cis and political.
.
“Cis” is not an extra term for straight any more than “trans” is. These terms have nothing to do with sexual orientation. If you can handle the word “straight,” as opposed to “boring/default/whatever,” then you can also handle the word “cis” by the same logic.whatever you say, cissie
What the fuck
I mean I shouldn’t be that shocked this is just the average cis persons internal rhetoric
cis and straight have clearly delineated meanings and are both useful terms. sounds like a you problem
Dork cissie in SHAMBLES after conflating “cis” (gender matches that assigned at birth) and “straight” (attracted to the ‘opposite’ binary gender) to whine about how they are the DEFAULT and so the term annoys them.
Cis and straight are… Entirely different axes, though. How would you describe someone who is cis and gay, or trans and straight while applying “straight” to both sexual orientation and gender identity?
The “default” for lack of a better term
There is a better term, it’s ‘cis’
What’s your preferred term for “not trans”?
They suggest that we use “straight” to mean both hetero and cis, and then use different terms for the “other” people.
Apparently, just unspoken default/normal. You know, boomer-style solipsism.
I find “cis” useful, personally. I’m bisexual, so certainly “straight” isn’t applicable. In a lot of contexts I’d use “cis” to refer to myself, I suppose “not trans” would also work, but it’d be clunkier.
Plus, there are times when the thing I want to centre in my communication is the cisgender perspective that I have. For example, I was recently discussing with a friend that seeing trans friend’s gender euphoria improved my own relationship to my gender because it made me ask myself whether cis people could experience gender euphoria and if so, why couldn’t I recall any instances of experiencing it?
I feel like the term “cisgender” implicitly acknowledges that voices and experiences like mine are important in building a shared understanding of gender — i.e. trans people aren’t the only ones who have a gender. Like, obviously I can’t speak directly about trans experiences, but that doesn’t mean that I’m expected to shut up and contribute nothing to the wider conversation.
“cis”
When the richest manchild in the world
outright bans people from his “radical free speech” cryptofascist safe space for saying “cis,” maybe it’s not a good look to be that worked up about that particular prefix. 
The question was “what term annoys you” not “what term annoys you that you’re sure Lemmy will approve of” (or that a malignant narcissist billionaire isn’t also annoyed by).
I’m open to an explanation of a commonplace situation where it’s necessary to have a separate word for “is of the gender that matches that assigned at birth.”
To me it’s like if I say I enjoyed the sunrise" and someone says, “you mean the Earth sunrise?”
I mean yeah, sunrises happen all over the solar system, there are different kinds of sunrises, probably all beautiful in their own ways, but in general the default “sunrise” a human is likely to be talking about is the one we experience on Earth.
you suck
I’m open to an explanation of a commonplace situation where it’s necessary to have a separate word for “is of the gender that matches that assigned at birth.”
Any time that you assume something is some vague obvious-to-you “normal” by default and insist that everyone else that isn’t that “normal” requires a distinct identifier.
You sound like a typical boomer that describes the ethnicity of anyone except those the boomer otherwise sees as “normal.”
but in general the default “sunrise” a human is likely to be talking about is the one we experience on Earth.
In this example they, the CIS are human, and the non-cis is implied to be what? Non-human? This person sucks.
Cis is just the opposite of trans. If some people are trans then it follows others are cis.
20 years ago you’d be pissing and whining about the use of heterosexual.
And we’ve used it for years for other words with the trans prefix, see Cisalpine versus transalipine gauls in roman history.
Sunrises on other planets are not a reality for anyone on Earth. The existence of trans people is.
I’m open to an explanation of a commonplace situation where it’s necessary to have a separate word for “is of the gender that matches that assigned at birth.”
trans people existing is that “commonplace situation” you worthless fucking worm
cishets need mandatory re-education at a minimum. this one should just be shot.
cishets need mandatory re-education at a minimum. this one should just be shot.
Waste of a perfectly good bullet; they make deep holes in the earth for that
the ussr left us the kola superdeep borehole knowing we would one day fill it with the absolute worst garbage humanity would ever produce
because they loved us.
Because they so loved the world
The question was “what term annoys you” not “what term annoys you that you’re sure Lemmy will approve of” (or that a malignant narcissist billionaire isn’t also annoyed by).
Nowhere in that question does it say you are free from being criticized for your dumbshit worldview. It’s a public forum, you write something, don’t get surprised when people respond.
To me it’s like if I say I enjoyed the sunrise" and someone says, “you mean the Earth sunrise?”.
That’s incredibly weird. To me it’s like someone saying “I’m trans, and you?” And the other responding “I’m cis.” Funny how that works.
I’m open to an explanation of a commonplace situation where it’s necessary to have a separate word for “is of the gender that matches that assigned at birth.”.
See above. Also see: Whenever you need to classify yourself as cis-gender in any survey, form or likewise.
There are plenty of cis gay folks. “Straight” just doesn’t work if you’re trying to describe non-trans people.
“At the end of the day…”
At the end of the day, it is night
When people refer to metal balls as ball bearings. A ball bearing is an assembly of outer ring, inner ring, balls, and a cage/retainer. I worked in bearing manufacture for years and they’re just referred to as balls. To be more specific, it would be a bearing ball, not a ball bearing.
People that use question marks in non-question sentences just to be extra snippy and condescending. Fuck that.
“Who hurt you?”
These days, that’s shorthand for “I’m an emotionally stunted liberal who is so incapable of self-reflection that anyone who disagrees with a point I have must be acting from a place of unresolved trauma”. It’s always felt like people-who-definitely-used-to-post-to-4chan burning extra words to get to the r-slur they so desperately want to use; but with the exact kind of plausible deniability that gets their squishy bits either hard or wet.
