Comments on: Comments on 12507

Post number 12507

DieHipsterDie — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:36:25 -0800

Why the You Tube hate on Metafilter/AskMefi?

By: Funmonkey1

Funmonkey1 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:45:41 -0800

*grabs popcorn and prepares for a show*

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:49:17 -0800

This is a legit newbie question. Not looking for a fight. Just wondering.

By: bob sarabia

bob sarabia — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:49:35 -0800

Because people think good links have to involve at least 2 hours of reading.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:50:11 -0800

Let's ask this guy!

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:52:43 -0800

It's low-hanging fruit, for the most part.

By: Funmonkey1

Funmonkey1 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:53:44 -0800

DieHipsterDie,

I am curious as to how it's a n00b question since you have been a member since November 2004?

I've only been a member since April 2006 and I smell a bit of a troll in this thread....

By: criticalbill

criticalbill — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:57:47 -0800

i think the hate is partly because there have been so many, so suddenly. And the one link FPPs exacerbate that. But as monju says, its an easy target. No-one wants this place to turn into ~~Snark~~ Fark

On Preview : funmonkey1, he doesnt say he's a n00b, he just says its a legit n00b question...

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:00:03 -0800

I registered in 2004 but don't keep up with the internal preferences/inside jokes of the site. For instance, I didn't understand the Pepsi Blue thing till I read it on the FAQ.

Not a troll. I have no opinion on You Tube.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:03:41 -0800

Brcause it's a phenomenon that's caught on and people need to prove how cool they are by being bored with it.

By: Funmonkey1

Funmonkey1 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:05:50 -0800

fair enough! It is a good question that gets put into play everytime there is a YouTube FPP.

criticalbill sums it up nicely in saying that no one wants this to be fark. I have to add there is also a vocal supposed intellectual elite which frowns upon anything that might not consist of multiple non-visual links on arcane topics.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:10:53 -0800

in fark's wildest dreams they couldn't have imagined metafilter.

By: purephase

purephase — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:11:30 -0800

This has been covered before. Search is your friend.

By: cortex

cortex — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:15:38 -0800

I have to add there is also a vocal supposed intellectual elite which frowns upon anything that might not consist of multiple non-visual links on arcane topics.

I think it'd be fairer, and more accurate, to generalize that a bit:

For any one of a variety of distinct sets of post-style preferences, there exists a vocal group who frown upon any observable uptick in deviations from that preference.

Dislike for YouTube/GoogleVideo/Etc links is (or, perhaps rather, has become) a common style preference, and the uptick in video in the last however long (year or so? Six months?) has been very significant. The product of these two things is an unusually pronounced group reaction to YouTube posts.

Of course, stating it this way doesn't give one the luxury of dismissing only the biases of Those Other Guys. Sorry about that.

By: cortex

cortex — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:16:45 -0800

in fark's wildest dreams they couldn't have imagined metafilter.

Nonsense. It'd just have great big tits and say nice things about their photoshop entries.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:17:23 -0800

1.) Because people expect static HTML, and web pages that require extended loading time or that contain audio content are annoying. For many people, reading the Internet isn't much different than reading a newspaper, and those people don't much appreciate web pages that "talk back."

2.) Because it's a meme. "There are neat videos on YouTube." Yeah, we get it. Thanks. If I want to check 'em out, I'll browse the site. Just as I don't need you to FPP every humorous article you find on Fark or every cool hack you see posted to Slashdot, we don't need to give every "Most Viewed" video on YouTube its own MetaFilter thread. Incessantly mining one website again and again and again and again and again does not constitute "the best of the web."

By: cribcage

cribcage — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:18:22 -0800

For the record, I could give a fuck about YouTube FPPs. Just tryin' to answer the guy's question.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:10:54 -0800

I think monju_bosatsu got it: It's low-hanging fruit. Finding a good video on the YouTube is about as hard as finding an interesting article on Wikipedia. Just poke around for a few minutes and you'll find something. It's no harder than finding an ass in your pants.

I could give a fuck about YouTube FPPs.

You could, eh? Do you, though?

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:18:12 -0800

I think maybe part of it is that "best of the web" really should be things which only the web can do. Which is to say that it should be at least a little bit interactive.

Television is television, whether it's a video clip in a flash plugin or a videotape. It isn't a uniquely-web kind of thing.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:18:17 -0800

Kids today with their fancy markup language and plug ins. People can't see the forest for the trees. Quality content CAN exist in video form, but lots of people are too blinded by the crap to believe it.

Plus, people want conversation more than funny links. Which is arguably not the point of Metafilter.

By: LarryC

LarryC — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:26:50 -0800

Posting YouTube links is like posting articles from The Onion. We know about the site, we like it, it doesn't have to be reposted every time the content changes.

By: riotgrrl69

riotgrrl69 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:33:57 -0800

I think maybe part of it is that "best of the web" really should be things which only the web can do. Which is to say that it should be at least a little bit interactive.

I don't think that's true at all. In any case, YouTube is most definately something only the web can do, unless you want to mail people DVDs.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:34:48 -0800

bob sarabia writes "Because people think good links have to involve at least 2 hours of reading."

I'm waiting for y2karl's YouTube FPP.

By: riotgrrl69

riotgrrl69 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:38:42 -0800

Posting YouTube links is like posting articles from The Onion. We know about the site, we like it, it doesn't have to be reposted every time the content changes.

The Onion is a publication by a small group of people, including content with a very limited scope, whereas YouTube is more of a medium than a publication, allowing anyone to contribute almost anything. Also, unlike say Slashdot, interesting content is easily buried on YouTube, making it suitable for linking here if the content is good enough.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:49:46 -0800

Battleship Potemkin (youtube link).

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:53:09 -0800

some ingmar bergman (i'm trying to raise the bar here).

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:04:01 -0800

some porky pig (i'm trying to lower the bar back, thankyouverymuch)

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:06:18 -0800

Because "YouTube" sounds just like "U Tube", which is what German submarines were called in WWI by the sailors aboard the U.S.S. Jacob Jones, which was sunk 6 December 1914 - carrying my great-grandfather and 63 of his shipmates to their watery graves.

FUCKING U TUBES

*sobs*

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:13:34 -0800

1917

*sniffle*

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:16:42 -0800

i think this thread has just been godwined.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:26:32 -0800

FUCKING U TUBES

hey, I know I'm cute, but a t least romance me a bit before trying that, sailor.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:49:44 -0800

Posting YouTube links is like posting articles from The Onion. We know about the site, we like it, it doesn't have to be reposted every time the content changes.

Bullshit. Posting YouTube links is like posting articles from online periodicals in general. And I don't want to "poke around for a few minutes"; I want people to find the good stuff and show it to me. That's what the "Filter" in MetaFilter means. But jonmc has it:

it's a phenomenon that's caught on and people need to prove how cool they are by being bored with it.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:51:18 -0800

That's the same reason why I hate U2.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:19:22 -0800

marvelous old man from Japan.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:20:45 -0800

Besides the other reasons cited, those FPPs are annoying to those of us who don't have Flash (apparently Macromedia/Adobe are too bloody cheap to invest in a 64-bit compiler).

By: caddis

caddis — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:45:55 -0800

OMG, madam that was the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. How did he lean over like that? Wow! The ending was precious.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:50:45 -0800

But jonmc has it: "it's a phenomenon that's caught on and people need to prove how cool they are by being bored with it."

I don't mind being asked to justify my opinion. It's part of the reason I participate in forums like this, because intellectual discussion and debate is healthy and amusing. But I do take a bit of umbrage when, after politely trying to explain that I oppose abortion for reasons X, Y, and Z, someone jumps in to explain that, "No, in fact, you oppose abortion because you want to punish women for having sex."

Just sayin'. A guy asked nicely why people oppose YouTube and he got some reasonable explanations, and then a couple people decided that today was Ironic Projection Day.

You could, eh? Do you, though?

I suppose I begged that question.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:16:02 -0800

"I didn't understand the Pepsi Blue thing till I read it on the FAQ."

Which you did immediately upon joining, right? At least, in its former version on the offsite Wiki?

"i think this thread has just been godwined."

You mean godwon.

The Onion is published in a weekly format. There isn't a "Best of YouTube" and best is subjective anyway, at best. As for a weekly publication of all YouTube content, well that's just crazy talk. I think people are mainly objecting to the jackass backyard stunt homevideos, and things like cats flushing toilets and especially stuff that's been around since the death of Usenet. With youtube FPPs, it's really hard to control the flow of doubles since many duplicate copies of stuff exist on YouTube. Hell, I uploaded a video that I couldn't find, only to be later shown that it was already there for months, just with shitty keywords.

But on the subject of linking to periodicals, I'm only half joking when I complain about single-link New Yorker posts. I mean, seriously, if I wanted to read the New Yorker, I'd just frickin read the New Yorker. At least with YouTube FPPs, it's not something I'd generally find on my own. But then, I don't spend 14 hours a day in front of a browser, reading every single DiggDotBoinger out there, crying "I'm BORED. Amuse me!"

By: Dasein

Dasein — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:16:09 -0800

i think this thread has just been godwined.

He said World War One, quonsar.

By: diddlegnome

diddlegnome — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:36:02 -0800

some ingmar bergman (i'm trying to raise the bar here).
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:53 PM PST on August 13 [+] [!]

some porky pig (i'm trying to lower the bar back, thankyouverymuch)
posted by jonmc at 5:04 PM PST on August 13 [+] [!]

Har!

And isn't the Net made up of a series of YouTubes? So YouTube-hating MeFites are kinda biting the hand that feeds them, no?

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:38:38 -0800

riotgrrl69 writes "In any case, YouTube is most definately something only the web can do, unless you want to mail people DVDs."

FTP, BitTorrent, UseNet? Even most email systems (unfortunately) can handle 90% of the YouTube stuff.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:52:14 -0800

And isn't the Net made up of a series of YouTubes?

The hideous truth.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:56:51 -0800

Another part of the YouTube hate is the fact that you often just get a "Watch this [link]" and have to figure out what it is by watching it. Before you've decided if it's worth wasting your time, you've already spent well over 100 seconds staring at it. Not too different from most websites, but folks have by now developed a schema for skimming webpages. I think the reason they're complaining (to give the benefit of the doubt) is not so much that they hate youtube; otherwise they could just peep the URL and skip it. Rather, they are complaining about the method of presentation; from lack of context, to poor editing (hay guyz watch this but skip to the 6:14 second mark), to the fact that they're still on dialup. It's not the content so much as the framing. With different framing, they would know more about what they were getting into before clicking the link, and would end up wasting less time. I think more conscientious posting guidelines than usual are called for on all video FPPs, at least until people have developed a better schema for handling video links or until video 'goes away.'

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:00:01 -0800

He said World War One, quonsar.

them WW's all look the same to us hippies.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:09:40 -0800

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think we need to distinguish between bad posts, and bad content. The context is often wonderful, the FPP's are often not. Anyways, I'll have a new opinion for you in about 11 minutes, so stay tuned!

By: rfs

rfs — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:18:57 -0800

Those of us still on dial-up don't have the free hours to wait for a YouTube video to download.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:20:55 -0800

What does "." mean??????////

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:32:28 -0800

Because people like to make a lot of little rules for what does or doesn't constitute a good thread.

"No youtube!"
"No one-link posts!"
"No Boing-Boing!"
"Nothing that's older than one week!"
and blah blah blah blah blah

Of course, if everybody actually listened to all of this crap, a good percentage of my favorite threads would have never been posted.

Really, the only posts that everyone seems to agree on are the art/photo related ones, and even then, all they can manage to say in the comments is "nice post."

By: fenriq

fenriq — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:35:52 -0800

I skip 90% of the YouTube stuff because its generally crap. And when I do give a try on that lame ass Peter thread, I get dragged into a pissing match with people who think a difference of opinion on the worth of the post means something besides a difference of opinion on the worth of the post.

Also, YouTube's video quality is atrocious.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:43:33 -0800

AskMe: "Are there any community blogs that track the best of YouTube?"

By: tellurian

tellurian — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:44:04 -0800

Thank You Maskman - Lenny Bruce.

By: Kickstart70

Kickstart70 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:54:10 -0800

I went to YouTube today and browsed through the "most recent videos". I couldn't figure out what one of them was, so I clicked and was presented with a guy fucking his Husky (dog) in the missionary position.

I'd say any hate is probably deserved.

By: StrasbourgSecaucus

StrasbourgSecaucus — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:05:37 -0800

and

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:07:49 -0800

Yeah, because people didn't start fucking their dogs and sharing it on the internet until YouTube came along.

By: StrasbourgSecaucus

StrasbourgSecaucus — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:15:55 -0800

i, for one, welcome our new dog-fucking, youtube-video-sharing overlords.

By: Kickstart70

Kickstart70 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:17:12 -0800

The point being, YouTube made it too easy for people like me (with no interest) to see people fucking their dogs.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:23:00 -0800

You'd rather they make you jump through hoops to do that, Kickstart70?

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:34:31 -0800

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Husky-dog-fuckers... oops, wrong website.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:40:24 -0800

MetaFilter isn't YouTube.

/sarcasm

By: Tuwa

Tuwa — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:53:39 -0800

I'm amused at the notion that anything should be judged by the worst that someone can find about it. Hitchcock, The Beatles, curried lentils? Suck. Getting out of bed? Sucks. Leonardo da Vinci? Are you kidding? Have you seen some of the sketches he drew in the margins? Obviously a talentless hack.

By: peacay

peacay — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:56:43 -0800

T'aint the site or the medium; it's the quality and the (lack of) context, as Eideteker said.

By: weretable and the undead chairs

weretable and the undead chairs — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:03:17 -0800

All I can say is please give a warm welcome to the maturbating cat.

By: strawberryviagra

strawberryviagra — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:03:19 -0800

Why do Americans say "I could give a fuck" when it makes more sense to say "I couldn't give a fuck"?

The same with "I could care less" rather than "I couldn't care less"?

If I could care less - there would be lesser things than the thing I didn't care about, whereas if I couldn't care less - there would be nothing I didn't care about more than the thing I didn't care about.

This is something I couldn't care more about.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:10:54 -0800

i don't have a problem with youtube. i will say this, though: i dislike certain youtube posts every bit as much as I hate boingboing, somethingawful, and newsfilter links.

those certain youtube posts are the ones that are just one of the latest top viewed videos. i specifically hate when people post things that are already widely distributed and therefore need no help from mefi to hit my retinas, such as boingboing and cnn.

some people respond to this criticism by saying "well, not everyone reads boingboing/somethingawful/digg/slashdot/cnet/nytimes, etc... so what's wrong if we like to see that stuff linked on mefi?"

nothing. but we're not redistributors for the internet's most popular web sites. frankly, if you're interested in newsfilter, tech news, eff fights, subway anagrams, youtube's greatest hits and all that, and you're NOT reading those sites, part of the reason why is because you expect mefi to hip you to the highlights. it's this aspect of things that bothers me. it makes mefi into little more than your personal rss aggregator, and i think that's a bad position for mefi to be in. if we didn't link to what monju so accurately calls the low hanging fruit, it would be virtually no effort for folks to go exactly where they already know this content exists, and then talk about it on their own blog, if ranting into the ether about shit is that important to them.

but honestly, that's just my opinion. like i said, i have no problem with youtube, so long as someone's finding the good shit buried in there where most people haven't bothered to look, yet. you know, like i'd hope we do for the rest of the internet.

By: jonson

jonson — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:13:18 -0800

so I clicked and was presented with a guy fucking his Husky (dog) in the missionary position

lnk pls, kthxbye

By: weretable and the undead chairs

weretable and the undead chairs — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:20:27 -0800

re: the old japanese man

cyril takayama is the illusionists name (I dug it up after seeing that video the other night) and you can find quite a few videos of him on youtube.

By: bob sarabia

bob sarabia — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:35:39 -0800

Thanks weretable, that guy rocks.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:53:44 -0800

-so I clicked and was presented with a guy fucking his Husky (dog) in the missionary position

-lnk pls, kthxbye

jonson is sure determined to win that $30! You know, there are cheaper ways. Hell, mouth like you've got, I'd say you could make $45, maybe $50 in the same amount of time you spend composing an FPP each day. I'll e-mail you my contact info, but I'm going to have to refer you to another pimp, because I don't handle dudes.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:08:12 -0800

Why do Americans say "I could give a fuck" when it makes more sense to say "I couldn't give a fuck"?

I think they are saying it sarcastically.

Either that, or they are dropping the "like" which should be found at the beginning of the phrase. Ironically, one instance in which "like" would actually have a real purpose in Ameringlish, and they choose not to use it.

Oh, and what shmegegge said.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:17:40 -0800

It was cool to learn from that AskMe UbuRoivas linked that Fark created fark.com/video last month.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:25:40 -0800

Tomorrow's MeTa: "Why the Fark Video hate on Metafilter/AskMefi?"

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:33:40 -0800

Ha, the tables have turned, my ceilingless friend!
Who's watching who now?!?

Thank you, weretable.

By: frogan

frogan — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:07:14 -0800

Why do Americans say "I could give a fuck" when it makes more sense to say "I couldn't give a fuck"?

If you think that's bad, wait until you hear "I could give a rat's ass" and the always classic, "I could care less."

and then a couple people decided that today was Ironic Projection Day

Isn't that every day?

Why the You Tube hate on Metafilter/AskMefi?

Because it's not the content, because every video is obviously different and of varying quality. It's the medium. It's like a TV network that does nothing except run Saturday Night Live re-runs. Sure, every sketch is different ... but they're all still sketches.

By: scrump

scrump — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:59:11 -0800

Brcause it's a phenomenon that's caught on and people need to prove how cool they are by being bored with it.

God, that's so jonmc of y...waitaminute.

By: majick

majick — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:59:27 -0800

"Why do Americans say "I could give a fuck" when it makes more sense to say "I couldn't give a fuck"?

Because of the implicit completion: "...but I don't."

By: strawberryviagra

strawberryviagra — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:06:26 -0800

Thanks

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:27:07 -0800

Another part of the YouTube hate is the fact that you often just get a "Watch this [link]" and have to figure out what it is by watching it.

Now that's a gripe I can get behind. But obviously the problem isn't the YouTube, it's the thoughtless posters. Burn them!

"Why do Americans say "I could give a fuck" when it makes more sense to say "I couldn't give a fuck"?

Because (for the millionth time) language isn't about making sense. People say "I could give a fuck" because they hear other people saying it and they like the sound of it, so they say it themselves. Why do "slow up" and "slow down" mean the same thing? It isn't logical!! (And please don't try to come up with some ad hoc bullshit about how they don't really mean the same thing, or how it's logical that they do because "up" and "down" can meet at the edge of the universe.) If you try to make language fit your notion of logic and consistency, you're going to waste a significant portion of your mental powers and get needlessly aggravated for the rest of your life. Just try to accept that "making sense" or "being logical" isn't a primary reason most humans use language and you'll have an easier life and will be able to devote that mental energy to something more productive, like snarking on MeFi.

By: Pinback

Pinback — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 06:38:34 -0800

Because so much of what gets posted from YouTube is the video equivalent of "OMG! Puppies!", or merely "LOL! Kewl vid from Jackass wannabes!", which is definitely stooping into Fark-like territory.

The truly good YouTube-based posts - like the well-outlined one on the "Barbie Girl" mime phenomenon, or todays/yesterdays 87 year old video blogger - are few and far between. But there's invariably another FarkFilter/YouTube post on the front page every single day...

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:04:13 -0800

People say 'I could give a fuck' out of mistake . It's the same as people saying "I could care less." That's wrong and means you could care less. The saying is "I couldn't care less." Somewhere along the line it got messed up.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:15:25 -0800

The saying is "I couldn't care less." Somewhere along the line it got messed up.

Right, so even if everyone in the world but you says it the "wrong" way, it's still "wrong," because you are the guardian and only true master of the English language. You might try taking a linguistics course sometime and find out how language works.

By: slimepuppy

slimepuppy — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:17:55 -0800

I couldn't not care more or less.

By: ArmyOfKittens

ArmyOfKittens — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:19:05 -0800

languagehat, any idea where "I could care less" comes from? I was curious, but an illicit google has provided only more people arguing over whether or not it makes any sense.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:30:20 -0800

language isn't about making sense

Sense isn't something that can be made, it is something that must be sensed.

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:34:12 -0800

You might try taking a linguistics course sometime and find out how language works.

I've got four years of linguistics courses? And you?

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:34:55 -0800

DieHipsterDie writes "I've got four years of linguistics courses? And you?"

This is going to be good.

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:37:42 -0800

I should say that "wrong" isn't the right word for "I could care less." Somewhere in the last ten years it changed from couldn't to could. "Couldn't" makes sense. "Could" doesn't. I think I was 30 when I started hearing people using the later.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:39:36 -0800

LANGUAGE BRAWL! GITCHER PROGRAMS, T-SHIRTS, POPCORN!

That's wrong and means you could care less.

If you're willing to presume that a literal reading of a transcription of an utterance is the source of meaning, sure. If you're dealing with living breathing human beings who don't just transliterate but speak, arguments for meaning based on dry interpretations goes right out the goddam window.

If I say "I love you" to someone, what does that mean? Does it matter how I say it? And to whom? Or does the phrase "I love you" have some intrinsic, monolothic, literal meaning which trumps any question of idiom or intonation or emotional context?

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:40:46 -0800

And be aware that statements about when, precisely, language changed, based entirely on your own anecdotal perceptions of said change, are almost always wrong.

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:41:55 -0800

This article pretty much covers the loss of the negative in "Couldn't care less."

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:42:18 -0800

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

What happened to my linky??

By: ArmyOfKittens

ArmyOfKittens — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:56:38 -0800

Thanks for the link, DHD :)

I actually have The Language Instinct, the book referenced in that link, but I haven't read it since university and I think it's in a box under the bed. So now I am ashamed.

By: yeti

yeti — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:08:09 -0800

Ω ≤ 1/∞; where Ω is My Level of Caring

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:09:54 -0800

I've got four years of linguistics courses? And you?

ABD.

I should say that "wrong" isn't the right word for "I could care less." Somewhere in the last ten years it changed from couldn't to could.

Ah, the four years start to come back to you.

languagehat, any idea where "I could care less" comes from?

It's shorter and easier to say (both phonetically—no /dntk/ cluster—and rhythmically); I presume that's how it got started.

By: Divine_Wino

Divine_Wino — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:11:30 -0800

When I was younger I said "I could care less" when I meant that I coudn't because that's what I heard other people saying, then one day I said it and I thought about what I just said and I stopped the conversation I was having and I said "No, wait... I meant I couldn't care less, you understand? Couldn't!"

I still understand when people say "I could care less" and I wouldn't dream of correcting them, but I have to admit the incorrect and illogical usage of these stock phrases is a subtle cue for me to stop paying as much attention to what my interlocutor is saying to me because it makes me think I'm speaking to one of those Eliza type "What do YOU think it means?" pseudo-Turing programs I had on my Amiga, no thinking just talking. I probably miss out with this kind of knee-jerk snobbishness, but there you go...

"I couldn't give a rat's ass" on the other hand is a phrase of such magical content that I don't care if it is used correctly or not. A rat's ass being such a perfect metric of contempt.

My feeling on youtube is that most of the links are not that interesting, but since I wouldn't part with even one of my carefully hoarded rat asses on a link I don't care about I just ignore 'em or hover around and see if any of the clever grumpies come up with anything funny and rude to say about them, I win every time that way, it's like a perfect day at the track with 6 $10 20 to 1's and a cold beer and a plate of oxtail stew and cocoa bread and everything's coming up wino!

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:11:46 -0800

It's shorter and easier to say (both phonetically—no /dntk/ cluster—and rhythmically); I presume that's how it got started.

That I'll agree with. To a point.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:22:03 -0800

Comment by DieHipsterDie to languagehat: "I've got four years of linguistics courses? And you?"

I think I can just stop reading MeFi now, because I will never come across something better than that sentence.

DieHipsterDie : "Somewhere in the last ten years it changed from couldn't to could."

I think it came from a mix of two phrases:
"I couldn't care less" and "like I could care less". Map the two across eachother and the overlapping sections (bolded) are "like I couldn't care less".

By: slimepuppy

slimepuppy — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:24:38 -0800

Cortex, I love you too, but I'm just not in love with you.

By: Carbolic

Carbolic — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:28:24 -0800

I could give a rat's ass but I'm fresh out. On the other hand, even if I had a bushel barrel full I wouldn't give one.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:42:30 -0800

I used to think Americans were a generous people, until they got greedy with their epithets.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:44:18 -0800

*bursts into tears*

I have you the best four years of linguistics courses of my life, you son of a bitch!

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:45:17 -0800

"have" being a perfectly acceptable dialectal variation on "gave" where I grew up

*lights slimepuppy's lawn on fire*

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:53:17 -0800

I think I can just stop reading MeFi now, because I will never come across something better than that sentence.

Well good for you, shithead. Go fuck your mom.

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:56:33 -0800

And you too, Cortex.

By: fnord

fnord — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:56:51 -0800

I...uhh....
*popcorn*

By: Divine_Wino

Divine_Wino — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:58:44 -0800

Uh oh, dudes are bringing moms's into this shit, about to get all knuckle crackin' and shovey-shove up in this piece, I say we meet in the parking lot at 3:05 pm and first one with a torn collar and a bloody nose says "awwwright man, shit I was just kiddin', your mom is a lovely lady."

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:02:37 -0800

This is the best of the web.

By: owhydididoit

owhydididoit — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:03:51 -0800

Because (for the millionth time) language isn't about making sense.

I could agree more.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:05:38 -0800

*studies to be come an Asser Of Rats so that people can give*

By: cribcage

cribcage — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:11:29 -0800

Well good for you, shithead. Go fuck your mom.

Those four years really paid off.

By: peacay

peacay — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:11:39 -0800

ABD ?
Although to be fair, I care much more about your track record of ~~smackdowns~~ erudition on the topic of linguistics than I do about credentials.

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:13:16 -0800

Well thank you, peacay.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:13:46 -0800

can there pleasepleaseplease be a flameout now?

p.s.: I am the guardian and only true master of the English language. haha.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:14:14 -0800

Well good for you, shithead. Go fuck your mom.

Raw, man? Take a deep breath. Nobody means any harm. You said something silly, people are riffing off it. This sort of thing happens on the Internet—and at the pub. Roll with it and everything is good.

If you don't see anything funny about boastfully rolling out your college coursework in argument, on the net no less, as a credibility taunt against goddam languagehat of all people, I can understand why this might seem a little bit more caustic than it is.

Seriously, it's like you just got in an argument with a cardinal and cited your comp. theo. degree and said Hey, Watchoo Got? It's funny. It's a misstep. It's not a big deal, but don't expect folks not to chuckle.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:15:57 -0800

Hey, what up with all the uncomfortability and tensionosity now? We were all havin' a good time up 'til when them linguisticists got all testyfied.

And more importantly, is Cortex s'posed to get jiggy with bugbread's mom, too?

Dirty inquirin' minds need to know!

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:17:22 -0800

Thanks, Cortex. Mentioning a linguistics B.S. was silly. I fell for the bait. I apologize to you.

I'm off to get a beer.

By: kosem

kosem — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:19:10 -0800

ABD (4th definition)="All But Dissertation"

By: Divine_Wino

Divine_Wino — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:21:27 -0800

I suggest a pint of Old Speckled Motherfucker, good man yourself.

By: peacay

peacay — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:26:09 -0800

languagehat has an Asian Breast Disorder? Poor bastard.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:28:51 -0800

And more importantly, is Cortex s'posed to get jiggy with bugbread's mom, too?

No, no, she's my Thursday night. Today I've got...

*thumbs through rolodex*

What the hell kind of name is Helen Ampersand?

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:30:24 -0800

Monday Daddy!

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:44:34 -0800

I'm all for acknowledging the fluidity of language, but I also think it's BS to pretend that ignorant, lazy thinking becomes correct purely through repetition. This way lies madness, truthiness, and civil wars in forcefully occupied territories.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:54:17 -0800

You forgot Poland.

By: meehawl

meehawl — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:08:05 -0800

The less said about "quarter to..." versus "quarter of..." the better.

By: Tuwa

Tuwa — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:15:50 -0800

I'm all for acknowledging the fluidity of language, but I also think it's BS to pretend that ignorant, lazy thinking becomes correct purely through repetition.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:44 AM PST on August 14 [+] [!]

So how do you pronounce "chandelier"?

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:18:12 -0800

Very carefully!

By: juiceCake

juiceCake — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:51:10 -0800

What is Fark?

And remember, Mr. Roger's YouTube is acceptable.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:11:58 -0800

Tuwa: "So how do you pronounce "chandelier"?"

So far, I've never gotten much further than, "Hey! Look out for the chande-!"

As I said, I'm all for acknowledging the fluidity of language. Pronunciation and definitions of words, being arbitrarily assigned in the first place, will change naturally with usage. So the pronunciation or meaning of "chandelier," though having common accepted characteristics dependant on time and region, is free to evolve. The phrase "I could care less," however, though commonly misused, will never be "correct" as a substitute for "I couldn't care less" because it is internally inconsistant by definition.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:17:25 -0800

But do you accept that the definitions of words change, even to the point of being largely antonymous to their prior definition? And do you accept that idioms, fixed phrases that are not equivilant in meaning to the literal interpretation of their parts, are valid and non-lazy, non-ignorant forms of speech?

If both are yes, then taking issue with "I could care less", an idiom with a very clear meaning to fluent speakers despite any logical contradiction with it's literal interpretation, is silly. It is correct simply because speaker and listener model the utterance to mean the same thing.

If both aren't yes, elaborate! I am interested in a conflicting view on the subject.

By: yeti

yeti — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:28:49 -0800

Irregardless, I think commonly misused words do become "correct" usage, if not by definition.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:36:47 -0800

"But do you accept that the definitions of words change, even to the point of being largely antonymous to their prior definition?"

Yes, I stated as much. That isn't actually relevant here, though, because the word "could" is, at this point in time, not widely considered as replaceable for the contraction "couldn't," except when referring to the likelihood of finding WMDs in Iraqi deserts, attaining victories in same deserts, or caring less.

"Do you accept that idioms, fixed phrases that are not equivalent in meaning to the literal interpretation of their parts, are valid and non-lazy, non-ignorant forms of speech?"

This requires a more serious answer. While I grant that nonsensical idioms can become valid expressions without reflecting poorly on the future locutor, I don't grant that they are necessarily born without reflecting lazy, ignorant usage. So, for example, WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY may become acceptable usage in the dystopian near-future, that doesn't make its origins less nefarious. Similarly, it may become acceptable to pronounce the word "nuclear" as "nukular," but that doesn't make the people who popularized the mispronunciation any less ignorant. Dig?

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:15:41 -0800

Yes, but what's the boundry between ignorance and convention? At which point in the chain of usage does the neological behavior cease being classified as ignorant-of-existing-standard and start being fluent-use-of-dialectal-usage?

Are the folks who learned the regionalism "nukular" from their friends and neighbors and parents ignorant, or correctly deploying the local dialect? Where in the line of years and generations does that fulcrum reside? What's the ratio of exposure to general-standard vs. local-standard that decides that adoption of the local dialect is ignorant vs. fluent?

What about folks who want to ax you a question? What about folks who say "innit"? What about folks who begin explanations with "the thing is, is..."? Etc. Calling it ignorance or laziness beyond the specific point of active creation of the neologism is a tricky thing, because where do you draw the boundaries?

And you can't include conspicuous deployment of a non-standard word or phrase or idiom, because by virtue of their very conspicuousness they are not ignorant, merely defiant.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:19:36 -0800

To summarize with respect to "I could care less":

It is possible that the progenitors of the phrase "I could care less" were literally ignorant of the logical backwardsness of the phrase they were using, but the moment the idiom became a term in circulation with a fixed meaning understood isomorphically by fluent speakers and listeners alike, the question of ignornance was moot because the phrase was being used correctly.

By: Heatwole

Heatwole — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:28:10 -0800

I bet "Go fuck your mom" will always mean "I'm off to get a beer".

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:33:11 -0800

This is the best of the web.

Amen, motherfucker!

ABD ?

Yeah, I was going deeper and deeper into debt and insanity until it finally occurred to me that, given that 1) there were no jobs in my specialty (a new opening every time somebody died), 2) I hated my dissertation, and 3) I hated teaching (I love explaining things to people one on one, but standing in front of a hundred bored kids who want nothing less than to pay attention to what I'm saying makes me want to mow them down with a Kalashnikov rather than magically bring them to love the subject), everybody would be better off if I stopped borrowing money, bade farewell to the Ivied Halls, and got a real job. And so it has proved. (But I sure miss the library...)

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:35:39 -0800

The fact that I cannot accurately pinpoint where a given transition takes place in no way means that there is no transition. This is a common fallacy (as I have no doubt you are aware). Which means that at the boundaries I have at least as much right to label the usage "incorrect" as another to vote for early adoption of the new convention. And in cases where the new usage insinuates a lack of clarity of thinking on the speaker's part, my opinion is that the old "correct" way merits greater consideration. Precisely because your earlier statement - "It is correct simply because speaker and listener model the utterance to mean the same thing." - obviously doesn't hold true, yet. In this case, for example, the speaker means to imply that they couldn't care less, but doesn't give enough critical attention to their own words to realize that they are actually saying the opposite. I may grasp their intent, but because I notice how sloppily it has been conveyed, they have inadvertantly communicated unintended information.

I can flip you the bird and you'd probably understand me, but that doesn't make it English. This, either: ;-p

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:43:32 -0800

Oh, and I have no problem with people asking for my credentials. If you're going to sound off all authoritative-like about language, you should be willing to say what you're basing it on. (Though I probably didn't need to take Old Irish, Vedic Sanskrit, and Hittite in order to pontificate on MetaFilter.)

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:56:36 -0800

Dude, I didn't mean to sound "all authoritative" about language. Sorry if it sounded like that.

In any case, my understanding is that the original phrase was "I couldn't care less." Somewhere along the line we started to hear "I could care less" which makes no sense when you look at it. Which leads to the question: In 100 years will "could care less" be the norm, the negative form being long forgotten? Will we have people wondering how the heck it makes any sense?

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:02:06 -0800

Sure, it's incorrect, perhaps even dumb, but that's how usage goes...

By: MetaMonkey

MetaMonkey — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:04:50 -0800

previous contranym fun

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:10:22 -0800

Est-ce quelques choses qu'on aurait besoin d'une maîtrise de l'anglais de comprendre?

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:16:20 -0800

Apparemment!

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:38:07 -0800

languagehat: "Oh, and I have no problem with people asking for my credentials."

Excellent! I've long wondered how you justify your haberdashery cred.

By: nickmark

nickmark — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:41:45 -0800

"In 100 years will 'could care less' be the norm, the negative form being long forgotten?"

Google currently has more than 5 times as many hits for "could care less" than for "couldn't care less"... but in both cases, most of the first page of results is taken up dealing with which is correct. Take from that what you will.

Oh, and DHD -- when languagehat said "you," I think he meant "I" (by which I mean him).

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:52:37 -0800

Some days back I considered creating a thread where I essentially asked why YouTube is taking over MeFi, but I decided against it because no matter how I worded it, it came off as being a troll. That wasn't my intent. It was just that I'm curious.

YouTube.com has only been around about a year and a half. It has, last I checked, over 85 posts tagged in MeFi. Comparatively, Nine Eleven happened five years ago this September, and has only accumulated about ninety some odd posts in three times the time.

That's just passing strange to me.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:08:10 -0800

Dude, I didn't mean to sound "all authoritative" about language. Sorry if it sounded like that.

Ack! No, no, when I said "you" I meant me! Damn this confusing English language! See, you don't need to be ungrammatical to be confusing. No, you didn't come off as trying to be an authority, you were just stating your opinion, which is your ~~God~~ Matt-given right.

Ah yes, upon review I see nickmark figured out what I meant. Well analyzed, sir!

By: languagehat

languagehat — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:11:13 -0800

That's just passing strange to me.

Why? There's only so much you can say about 9/11; YouTube is not comparable to a news event, it's a medium. It's like discovering a library of printed books; are you going to get fed up with people pulling new discoveries out of the library just because you've seen other books from the library? "Plato, dude? Yesterday it was Aristotle, the day before that Shakespeare... can we move on already?" Not that I'm comparing crazed cats and pontificating septuagenarians to Shakespeare, but you see my point.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:25:23 -0800

And to think I'd given up on this thread! That was awesome.

By: caddis

caddis — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:27:42 -0800

Except that instead of Plato and Shakespeare we keep getting Goosebumps.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:36:37 -0800

languagehat: "Not that I'm comparing crazed cats and pontificating septuagenarians to Shakespeare, but you see my point."

Now is the winter of our rheumy cat
Made spastic hairball by this bit of nip;
And all the ailments that creep about our house
The rattling breath temporary stilled.
Now are our comb-overs draped like death-house shrouds;
Our cottage-cheese arms lunge for toppling lamps;
Once disapproving visages chang'd to howls of mirth,
All of talk of failed chances drowned in merriment.
Grim-visag'd death throws back his shadowed cowl;
And now,--instead of swinging soul-stained scythe
To sow our lives, He joins, enchanted, with--
To watch the nimble feline play,
And pause to lick his hairy arse.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:39:41 -0800

DieHipsterDie writes "Well good for you, shithead. Go fuck your mom."

Told ya.

ZachsMind writes "It has, last I checked, over 85 posts tagged in MeFi. "

It's a lot more common than that, we average better than 1 a day.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:43:02 -0800

Well good for you, shithead. Go fuck your mom.

Those four years really paid off.

fantastic stuff : )

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:51:59 -0800

Why do Americans say "I could give a fuck" when it makes more sense to say "I couldn't give a fuck"?

I've never seen any logical problem with the phrase. To me, "I could give a fuck" implies an unspoken "...but I don't."

By: DieHipsterDie

DieHipsterDie — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:53:06 -0800

Those four years really paid off.

fantastic stuff : )

Man, education has never stopped anyone from resorting to insults.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:24:07 -0800

ZachsMind writes "YouTube.com has only been around about a year and a half. It has, last I checked, over 85 posts tagged in MeFi. Comparatively, Nine Eleven happened five years ago this September, and has only accumulated about ninety some odd posts in three times the time. "

Evidently Nine Eleven is old news. In the words of the Ramones, "I don't care 'bout history | 'cause that's not where I wanna be..."

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:26:44 -0800

Though I probably didn't need to take Old Irish, Vedic Sanskrit, and Hittite in order to pontificate on MetaFilter

And nor should you even have wanted to, as Latin is the only cromulent language in which to pontificate.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:33:31 -0800

ZachsMind: At the risk of getting all out-of-character serious on you, perhaps another explanation could be that tags didn't exist when 9/11 was the topic du Jour, or for some time after? Which, when coupled with the fact that subsequent peripheral posts may not have been tagged with 9/11, but still relevant to 9/11 (think War on Terror and War in Iraq), maybe the numbers aren't quite as scary as they seem. But IANAS. (I am not a statistician.)

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:42:08 -0800

For example, a Yahoo search on YouTube returns 4,880 hits for MetaFilter. A Yahoo search on 9/11 returns 80,700 hits. So I think YouTube has a way to go before it officially overruns the site.

Although - ironically enough, the spellCjecker wants to replace "YouTube" with "outnumber." So maybe I'm wrong.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:59:24 -0800

Latin is the only cromulent language in which to pontificate.

arent you forgetting Ubbie Dubbie?

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:04:05 -0800

ZachsMind : "YouTube.com has only been around about a year and a half. It has, last I checked, over 85 posts tagged in MeFi. Comparatively, Nine Eleven happened five years ago this September, and has only accumulated about ninety some odd posts in three times the time. "

As It's Raining Florence Henderson points out, tags didn't exist in 2001. In fact, they've only existed since January 2005, so a year and 3/4. 9/11 has accumulated roughly the same amount of tags as YouTube has in roughly the same amount of time, despite tag drift to tags like "War on Terror" or "Iraq" or "Afghanistan War" or the like, and despite the event having occurred 5 years ago.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:13:21 -0800

languagehat, so are you saying phrases become teh cool just because people like how they sound? Say what?

weretable, thanks so much for the info on that "old" guy - I will have fun checking his other stuff out tonight.

By: owhydididoit

owhydididoit — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:14:56 -0800

iccl

By: 29

29 — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:40:48 -0800

strawberryviagra

Wedge would like to say "i gives a fuck"

By: strawberryviagra

strawberryviagra — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:03:38 -0800

Me, I'm lying prostrate on the pavement, staring at the sky.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:07:02 -0800

so, itsrainingflorencehenderson just rocked my socks. anyone else?

By: clockzero

clockzero — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:08:51 -0800

I always assumed that "I could care less" was not intended to mean the same thing as "I couldn't care less," which obviously states an absolute position on caring about some subject; I think "I could care less" means instead that the speaker cannot even be bothered to concretize the degree of their emotional involvement in whatever matter is at hand, which is a sort of indirect method of indicating their actual position by implication.

By: nickmark

nickmark — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:20:09 -0800

*inhales deeply*

*long pause*

*exhales*

Whoa.

By: .kobayashi.

.kobayashi. — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:06:30 -0800

I've always thought that instead of saying "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less," people should sing, at the top of their lungs "I should care / I should go around weeping." If you want, you could continue with the "I should go without sleeping" line. That'll stop the suckers dead in the tracks.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:04:27 -0800

arent you forgetting Ubbie Dubbie?

Forgetting? After four years of linguistics?

Gubbo fubbuck yobbur mobbom.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:33:59 -0800

I think people also have a very fundamental "Ooh, TV, this should be good" response in their lizard brain to moving pictures, and they let themselves be suckered into watching something. Later, they regret this failing of their rational mind and want to take it out on the poster and...

Wait, you kids aren't even talking about this anymore, are you? Well, I'm gonna shut up before I'm the one marked as a derail.

By: dg

dg — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:43:28 -0800

Jeez, the flameouts are getting pretty tame around here. Where's the endless banter of personal insults across the ether and trading of links to out-of-context comments dredged up from years gone by? Where's the abuse, I say?

Place is turning into a cesspool of understanding.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:30:40 -0800

Metafilter: Place is turning into a cesspool of understanding

By: longbaugh

longbaugh — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:16:58 -0800

I like the idea of Kermit the Frog singing "Once In A Lifetime" wearing David Byrne's Big White Suit a heck of a lot, but not enough to post it to the front page.

It's seriously one of the best music videos in history.

I am not averse to sneaking the link in anywhere else though. My sense of honour and decency having been eroded by working 12 hours on my day off, too much Guitar Hero, too many hotdogs, two hours sleep and dreaming that my face was being licked by a baby reindeer that made the exact same noise as Uni from the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon.

By: hoverboards don't work on water

hoverboards don't work on water — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:25:36 -0800

170 comments and nobody has stood up for the prescriptivists?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:58:27 -0800

Thank you, longbaugh. That video made my day.

By: the aloha

the aloha — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:43:38 -0800

well, they are better than google at something. can't make google think you are cheating on it.