Let’s keep it civil. You both make solid points and have differing opinions. Anytime you’ve headed into the second-person in a heated debate, it ceases to be a debate.
For your second point: That’s precisely why I default to addressing counter-arguments to the collective “you”. Can’t expect anyone to digest the arguments if every scathing word anyone might not like is addressed to specific individuals. I won’t pretend to be happier and more content with having to make such arguments than anyone else should be, and if anyone wants to claim a specific piece to take personal offense to, that’s their perogative.
I do try to lay out a path away from such outcomes, but the road involving any concessions or self-reflection is narrow and treacherous versus the highways full of land-mines that somehow look more inviting. Apparently the “toll-gate” hands you a beer and a blind-fold with pretty flowers on it or something.
/end-rant/pontification: I myself am lost in the woods, and the land-mines are really pretty some days.
We have a couple of words for the collective “you” … “Y’all” has really shed its hick label over the past couple of decades (in the Northeast, “yous” is preferred). English really should have gotten this figured out after the collapse of having clear ways to express this into the unified “you.” But that’s a linguistic story, and I’m just trying to keep things nice.
I find the fixation of randos(most of us, abparently) on assuming “you” is referring to them and only them off-putting, myself. I can be having an on-going conversation, start a sentence with “you” and get interrupted by a third-party going “WHAT!?” …
I’m such a paragon of getting this right, and a successful parent, that it happens in my own house, when they know good and well I’m capable of shouting names across the house at volume sufficient to make the whole neighborhood understand what I’m saying, so why do they assume a barely-audible “you” from two-rooms over is meant for them? Is it me?
I’m assuming you actually want an answer. As a columnist, you want to use the second person extremely sparingly when lobbing an accusation at someone else, because the odds are they will find it to be a direct accusation.
And of course it isn’t. I’m not suggesting otherwise. But as the old saw goes, communication is a two-way street. If what you’re broadcasting isn’t what’s received, well, that’s a failure.
I’m glad y’all found a way to work it out. I’m just pointing out how this sort of interaction can quickly devolve, and I didn’t want to see it go there.
Let’s keep it civil. You both make solid points and have differing opinions. Anytime you’ve headed into the second-person in a heated debate, it ceases to be a debate.
We already reconciled, thanks.
Wonderful. Cheers!
For your second point: That’s precisely why I default to addressing counter-arguments to the collective “you”. Can’t expect anyone to digest the arguments if every scathing word anyone might not like is addressed to specific individuals. I won’t pretend to be happier and more content with having to make such arguments than anyone else should be, and if anyone wants to claim a specific piece to take personal offense to, that’s their perogative.
I do try to lay out a path away from such outcomes, but the road involving any concessions or self-reflection is narrow and treacherous versus the highways full of land-mines that somehow look more inviting. Apparently the “toll-gate” hands you a beer and a blind-fold with pretty flowers on it or something.
/end-rant/pontification: I myself am lost in the woods, and the land-mines are really pretty some days.
We have a couple of words for the collective “you” … “Y’all” has really shed its hick label over the past couple of decades (in the Northeast, “yous” is preferred). English really should have gotten this figured out after the collapse of having clear ways to express this into the unified “you.” But that’s a linguistic story, and I’m just trying to keep things nice.
I find the fixation of randos(most of us, abparently) on assuming “you” is referring to them and only them off-putting, myself. I can be having an on-going conversation, start a sentence with “you” and get interrupted by a third-party going “WHAT!?” …
I’m such a paragon of getting this right, and a successful parent, that it happens in my own house, when they know good and well I’m capable of shouting names across the house at volume sufficient to make the whole neighborhood understand what I’m saying, so why do they assume a barely-audible “you” from two-rooms over is meant for them? Is it me?
I’m assuming you actually want an answer. As a columnist, you want to use the second person extremely sparingly when lobbing an accusation at someone else, because the odds are they will find it to be a direct accusation.
And of course it isn’t. I’m not suggesting otherwise. But as the old saw goes, communication is a two-way street. If what you’re broadcasting isn’t what’s received, well, that’s a failure.
I’m glad y’all found a way to work it out. I’m just pointing out how this sort of interaction can quickly devolve, and I didn’t want to see it go there.