• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I am dishearten to see a few contributors using sweeping generalizations when writing about pretty deep and broad issues/subjects. All people of a certain color, political view or religion as examples being labeled in a way that is unfair and speaks perhaps to the writers bias. We are all individuals and while a percentage is perhaps accurate, putting it as a definitive speaks to an unbalanced approach and can lessens the content and impact/validity in my opinion.

      At what percentage do you feel all of "x" can be placed in single label?

    • We are all individuals

      I'm not!

      Kidding aside, generalizations are sometimes hard to avoid without being verbose or lawyerly. When someone uses a generalization that bugs me, I try to remind myself that I'd probably be even more annoyed if everything I read online were written like a legal document.

    • "most", "often", "sometimes", "on occasion" are all reasonable replacements instead of slapping an entire population or race or "insert here" without sounding lawyer like. Lots more too I bet.

      At what point without statistical data to include "all" seems to be pretty darn high.

      Although I do see a decline in writing skills (I never had any to start).

      Also verbal. I had to turn of the radio when this reporter for NPR had "like" and "you know" as every third or fourth word in the report. I hear it more and more, I wouldn't say all people use it though ;-)

      Oh and embed would be so much easier to use if we had it, as depending on work or home I may not click a link trusting it is safe for work. Will have to wait to see what you linked too.

    • Hi there,

      I see your point in the way that language has changed. This is true yes. Language is human made though, right? The word "bootylicious" is in the dictionary officially. We as humans decided to put it there.

      The purpose of language is to communicate right? So here's my question: as language changes and evolves (whether for better or worse) do we understand each other any less?

      I suppose my point is, yes, people are adding the word "like" and "you know" to lots of sentences, it's progressing more that way just as language is evolving. Do you feel like it's just obnoxious to hear? Or do you feel like you don't understand the message that is trying to be portrayed when that happens?

    • We're making encouraging progress with embeds! I know, Twitter and Facebook make them look easy with their ginormous engineering teams and the years they've been around, but a lot goes on behind the scenes. I've seen a very pretty demo on our staging server but as we know with software, a big gulf exists between getting something working and production code that can handle tough edge cases. I personally can't wait because I think they will make such a big difference when using Cake.

      I'm like you when it comes to using words like "always" and "everyone."

    • I see it as verbal waste if a conversation is 30% filler with constant "like", "you know"(when not used in the right context then it certainly has potential to push away some of the audience? Filler has been used a lot in communication through the ages, perhaps when I hear it at the level of a news reporting it makes me less likely to listen to the person.

    • Thanks Chris,

      I whine too much about it I am sure.

      These days we take less and less time to see the large amount of work that goes into things, throw away culture at its "best" :(


    • So the other day I am sitting in a cafe and a person is being interviewed at the table next to me.

      "like" was used so heavily along with the other "you know" and filler words/phrases, it was amazing the person got any substance out of it. When the person left, I told the interviewer I could not help but over hear the conversation and was curious what they were interviewing for. "communications director", I laughed and they shrugged and smiled and said "Yup, it is really sad how little actual communication is going on in the field (Stanford Business professor as I found out).

    • That's an extremely fascinating observation. Even a Stanford Business professor interviewing for a Communications Director position has picked up on using filler words. To be fair, I wonder if there's a bit of anxiety when getting interviewed for a position like that causing more filler words to come out. This is not to say that individual should be hired for a communications roll, I am just more intrigued that even someone who is highly educated, with a number of years experience has picked up on a habit such as that.

      I suppose it just goes to show that our language is changing, and with that said, may change away from that as well.

    • My pet peeve is language that makes you sound intelligent while leaving us to wonder what was just said. I think it's a plague in business "We seek synergistic relationships that empower both parties to fulfill their potential through collaboration and understanding."

    • HA!!!! This, so much this. Or even to take it a step further, an ego trying to sound intelligent, while using a bunch of filler words, that are ultimately wasting time in getting to the point, if there even ever was one.

    • my former boss would use every catch phrase in the book to say nothing.

      whats the double click on that? Do we have the runway for this? at the meta level what are you saying etc etc etc...... it was like awful! :-)

      listen to the supreme court stuff and you can come away amazed at all the words and no actually substance to much of it.

    • generalizations are a natural part of how our brains function, and are useful for things like identifying dangerous predators - that creature is large and has sharp teeth! Take cover! Or this colorful growth on the plant looks like fruit. I will taste it. But there are reasons we should have control over what we say, just like wearing clothes and taking care of boldly functions in private. We can't stop or brains from stereotyping, but we can choose how we respond. Using racial, religious, and gender stereotypes in public is ugly and can be hurtful. I also find that life is a lot richer and more enjoyable when I overcome my biases and try to treat others as "better than myself" - I learn more and have unexpected friendships.

    • Hi Jaxonia and welcome to Cake! What a wonderful first post. I gave some thought to treating others as better than myself and as I went down a mental list of people I know, in each case I could think of ways they are better than me, sometimes much better, even though I like to think of myself as good.

    • I deleted my first comment on this because after checking the source, I found that I had spoken hastily.

      The idea of "esteem others better than" self is not talking about whether they are or are not a better person but rather whether I am able to "get over myself" to such a degree that I am not in any way engaging in self-aggrandizement but rather in giving respect to others. Regardless of whether a person deserves or does not deserve respect, I need to place the giving of respect to others above my desire for others to respect me.

      Humility is not so much about being scum as it is about being admirable and yet not seeking to be praised. I heard a story about a man who was commenting to another about a third man. Of the third man, the speaker said "He is a great man but he does not know it."

      I don't know whether the speaker intended that to be literal or to mean that he does not let it go to his head or affect him, but the point is that true humility always places others and the need of other ahead of ego.

      It is a very small man indeed who needs to be seen as great. It is a great man who can be the wind beneath the wings of everyone else so that they can soar.

    • I once took a college course on religion and the professor (Mormon) defined humility as a right estimate of yourself. That has always stuck with me.