Do people put to much importance on language and words when judging people?

Yeah, I definitely form mental images of people in here based on how they post especially those for whom I've not any real life imagery to compare. At the risk of being quite cliched I tend to be rather more generous in how i imagine those people i like

 

"Do people put to much importance on language and words when judging people?"
People put too much importance on judging people.

 

And getting a proper chance to talk and respond should miscommunication or misunderstanding occur. Depends on venue visited, of course.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, Cutie! What I am missing most - both online and IRL - is what at my time we used to call "discussion culture" and what my dictionary calls "an atmosphere of constructive debate": the art of having a discussion using well considered points and not using insults. This thread is a pleasant exception, but there are examples galore on this board where someone tries to express their deepest thoughts and instead of a fruitful discussion all they get in return is a "what b*shit". Such rudeness disencourages people from communicating and this way many interesting topics never get posted.

And there is another - imo important - point that I believe has not yet been considered: not everyone posting here is a native speaker of English. As already mentioned by previous posters it is difficult to express thoughts and feelings in words, particularly online where you can't use body language to emphasise the meaning. Imagine how much more difficult it is for someone who has to do that in a foreign language. From my personal experience I can say that often, when a foreigner inadvertently uses the wrong word, they get very rude comments instead of being asked what exactly they meant. People don't give them a chance to iron out misunderstandings which would also be a facette of "cultivated debate".

 

Isn't your judicial system is based on judging actions...not words or beliefs?

 

Are you referring to urbandefault's post or to mine, Leviathan?
If it was meant for me, I don't quite get the connection to my post but
actually no. In my country, planning a crime is as punishable as actually committing it; the sentence might be milder, but it's a crime, nevertheless. As for punishing beliefs - isn't that precisely the definition of Quantanamo?

 

How very 1984.

 

Yep.

Oh, and also yep to the OP.

 

To quote a chat custom, hallowed by age and history: *whacks AA with a wet trout*
I was taught at school that it's PC - though slang - to say shit but that with the bull in front it gets a major insult (basically parallel to applying the f word with or without a female parent in front). Was I wrongly informed or has there been a change in the last 3 decades? After all, languages and customs are a sort of living things and thus are subject to fashions and trends.

 

More of a general observation of humanity, but I'd say it applies mostly to the OP.

To your interesting extrapolation however, I would put 'planing' as an action. For example, discussing how to rob a bank, even with intent to follow up on it is words. Casing a bank, figuring out how to get inside the walls, evaluating the security weaknesses and working out contingencies is an action.

Restricting speech or beliefs is an action that typically results in in rather nasty actions. Best to avoid it.

 

Damned impressive!
And ROTF at the bleeping out of god!

But to get back on topic: I think on a subconscious level vocabulary does matter when we form an impression on people. If someone uses a lot of swear words you automatically assume they come from a bad social background. The same applies in those cases where a native speaker uses words in a wrong context or uses extremely bad grammar or a very wide accent. I am not quite sure whether experience teaches us that people who don't speak correctly come from lower classes or whether it's a prejudice we got taught by parents, school or maybe even the system - it's very difficult to analyze so deeply ingrained views in an unbiased way. But whatever the reason and though there surely are exceptions, in general terms the prejudice does have a point: people who have no good education don't get good jobs and don't use a high language level (both not necessarily connected, but both based on the low educational level). They then can't afford giving their children a good education and so the problem spreads to the next generation.
I think what all nations ought to do is to make sure that everyone gets the same chances in the educational system. Differences in education should not be based on income but solely based on the individual's personal abilities. And everyone ought to be able to speak their native language correctly.

 

I find "custard" is an excellent substitute for two profanities at once.

 

Or it could just be that the reader is either misunderstanding due to a cultural disconnect, the speaker's first language might not be English, or the reader is being deliberately obtuse.

Oh, fuddle-duddle.

 

good point. If I'd say I killed two flies with one swat, hardly anyone here would understand that I killed two birds with a stone (something that in Germany would earn you a really hefty fine, all birds being heavily protected here). If you'd call someone over here a motherf..er, they would be surprised but not offended since the expression is no insult here; we do frown upon incest for genetical reasons but it is no crime if both are of age and do it voluntarily. In order to insult someone really rudely in Bavaria, you'd have to invite them to the parish fair, which in English speaking countries would mean nothing but a pleasantly spent afternoon with homemade cakes and a charity fleamarket. And Johnny Depp always causes a giggle in Germany, Austria and parts of Switzerland since in German-speaking countries a Depp is a village idiot / a fool (only a mild insult, btw).

As a non-native speaker of English I find that the proverbial expressions and images are particularly tricky snares because native speakers use them without thinking and literal translations often make no sense at all. In every country, these proverbial phrases are so much a matter of fact for us that we don't even remember that other peoples use different images to convey ideas and principles.

 

Idioms and whatnot are a different conversation. Obviously, it can be a struggle for someone who didn't grow up speaking English to understand that you chop up a tree after you chop it down.

 

I'll say it: internally ( I try not to always respond), I judge people when they screw up basic things. Forgiveness is given to non-native speakers when aware of it, but generally, when you screw up things that would cause you to fail 3rd grade, I mentally take points off of your comment.

to/too, lose/loose, your/you're, they're/there/their, etc. Love watching someone get all worked up, call the other guy a "looser" and think he won the argument!

Makes me think you're a dummy, so I go into the post already thinking the post is going to be dumb, or worth less consideration. Very rarely am I disappointed. Most of the words are 4 letters or less, not knowing the difference is poor.

And as most people in those kinds of posts tend to say: learn English or get out of my country

 

I'm glad that Montréalers don't have that attitude re: French.

I have become quite fond of Montréal and I know a few words in French, but no way could I ever actually carry on a conversation in it. Thankfully I don't have to, everyone I ever met in Montréal speaks English just fine (it's actually a very diverse city, culturally and language-wise).

The written word, on the other hand...the whole province of Quebec has extremely Draconian language laws regarding how all signs, storefronts, etc. must be in French. Hell, they have inspectors who actually penalize businesses which have too much English on their signs. They could stand to lighten up a bit on that point.

 

Killing two flies with one swat just sounds efficient. I wish I could do that with mosquitoes!

Funny thing about flies, though... I used to work at the interpretive centre at a wildlife sanctuary. One day there was a really persistent fly annoying us at the front desk. I went in search of a flyswatter and couldn't find one. So we had to try to catch the thing with our bare hands. It took awhile, but we did finally manage it.

So who gets the fine if a cat kills a bird, or if a bird kills a bird? What if the bird kills itself by flying into a glass window because it doesn't realize that the sky it thinks it sees is really a pane of glass that's going to bash its brains in when it hits it?

Dunno if anyone here heard, but the Canadian Prime Minister got raked over the social media coals this past week for saying "peoplekind". Some twit on the Canadian news site I post on (in the comments sections) kept ranting that he'd said "poeplekind" and that it's "mankind, not poeplekind."

So a number of us got annoyed and told her that since she couldn't manage to spell "people," she was hardly in a position to correct Justin Trudeau's English... and the situation turned out to be a joke at one of his recent town halls taken completely out of context anyway.