As a corollary to the OP, I resent when someone offers their opinion on an artist/movie/whatever without giving an example of the opposite to put their opinion into perspective.
Compare:
The Monkees sucked as a group.
I hate the Monkees, but the Partridge Family was top notch.
I hate the Monkees; Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, they knew how to rock.
is an opinion in a vacuum.
shows me the poster is more into pop music of a sort.
shows me the poster dislikes pop music and is more of classic rock fan.
IME on this site there are three types of wrong and here are the appropriate responses.
Honest mistakes. The most common wrong and I’ve been guilty of a few of these. Correct person posts a link to website that has the correct error. Me personally? I always acknowledge that I was in error and thank them.
Just look it up. The answers are so readily available that they are usually answered with LMGTFY. I don’t see a lot of factual mistakes like this - mostly questions by lazy people.
Trolls. No matter what evidence you present, they will always discount it. The proper response is to see how far you can stretch Poe’s Law
<CT>But jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel</CT>
<Me>But they replaced the steel in WTC 1 and 2 with aluminum when they built WTC 7 knowing they may someday have to destroy #7 in a way that looks like an “accident”. I mean why has the Port Authority never “denied” they used aluminum? Just asking tough questions.</Me>
Starting a reply with a condescending “um” is against the rules on some other forums I’ve been on. That may seem like a rather picayune rule, but it really raises the civility level and gets people to be more aware of their tone. (I’m not suggesting that the SDMB make that rule; it would never work here.)
The one that really grinds my gears is “I’m not sure what you mean,” which is generally delivered in a way that implies “I know exactly what you mean, and I think you’re an idiot.” Ugh. :mad:
It’s funny…I always thought that the initial “um” softened the response, as if one is hesitating to intrude, or apologizing for the temerity of making the correction.
Not, “God, you’re so stupid, but John Wayne wasn’t in that movie,” but, rather, “Well, yeah, I see your point, but John Wayne wasn’t in that movie.”
I always saw the initial “Um” as a more of civility, decorum, and gentility!
Now I’m sad, because I’ve been using “Um” for years, with the intent of it being a way to soften the blow of being corrected. Foof! I was trying to be polite, and now I learn I’ve been just the opposite.
Well I’ll be dipped in… er… Anyway, I guess I’ll have to stop.
I perceive um as a softener. My take is that a lot of nods towards politeness can smack of condescension. But I think on balance they are preferable. After all, to the extent that a dominance game is involved, escalating politeness isn’t a bad thing.
(The title to this post of course is not polite at all, though it is condescending. So they don’t always go together.)
I really do not see it as condescending, but as softening the blow. Not, “You’re wrong,” but, “Ah, well, see, the thing is…you’re wrong.” I see it as a measure of gentility.
“um …” is generally the equivalent of “I hate to break it to you but …”.
It’s an exaggerated politeness, whose purpose is to convey the idea that the comment being responded to is so idiotic that you hesitate to point it out.
ETA: I think this may be the same point MfM was making.
Regardless of your intent, it can often come across as condescending. (And I see it taken that way by posters that it is addressed to, as well.) I would advise not using it.
Crap, what’s best practice then? A simple declarative sentence can be interpreted as stark or harsh. Look at the varying ways that folks interpret Czarcasm’s single sentence comments. (I personally don’t have a problem with that sort of thing, but I do believe it to be somewhat sharp. Helpfully sharp, but sharp nonetheless.)
I read “Um” as a little condescending, but within acceptable parameters and generally speaking an improvement over a single declarative corrective sentence.
I suppose you can apologize for being pedantic, but consider Trin’s example. It’s a no-harm/no-foul situation (plausibly a typo), but also something that should be clarified.
I guess “I think you meant 1945”, would work, but that doesn’t feel perfect to me either. Elaboration can sometimes provide some emotional misdirection, but I can’t see doing that in this case either.
I’m glad this one doesn’t happen very often anymore; it used to annoy me no end too - I am quite capable of using Google; often I want a wider or more interesting response than (as you say) the Wikipedia entry or a post from some random blog that hasn’t been updated since 2009.
Personally, I find “Um” as breathakingly, appallingly condescendingly rude when used to start a post on a messageboard. IMO you might as well start with telling the poster to whom the “Um” was addressed that “You’re an uneducated peasant and a pathetic n00b. You have brought shame to your ancestors with your ill-informed post.”
At least give some of us credit for having used it (in the past; I guess I’m over it now) with a TOTALLY different meaning! The intend was exactly the opposite of being rude.
Lazy, as opposed to the OP looking it up himself instead of posting?
Yes, I know a reply of “Google it” is considered rude here. But given that the SD’s motto is “fighting ignorance”, I’d think getting others to try fighting their own ignorance is actually more effective in the medium and long run. But maybe that’s just me.
What I’ve observed many times in many different settings is that being helpful often just gets you being asked to help even more.
I’ve almost never encountered it being used online with any meaning other than the one I mentioned before.
Conversationally, it’s different - “Umm, so, like, hey, does anyone know a good sushi place around here?” - but responding to someone’s post with it when you think they’ve made an error? Extraordinarily rude, IMO.
A simple declarative sentence can be interpreted as stark or harsh. Look at the varying ways that folks interpret Czarcasm’s single sentence comments. (I personally don’t have a problem with that sort of thing, but I do believe it to be somewhat sharp. Helpfully sharp, but sharp nonetheless.)
