• sem
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    One time I accidentally said a kid’s name on a 2-way radio, and we were not supposed to use their names over the airwaves.

    I’m not sure if I had critics thought, it was just a mistake

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      wtf does this even mean

      OP is asking two things:

      • the most controversial shit that you say
      • the shit that you say and think “mmh, maybe I’m wrong but I’ll keep saying it”

      …or at least that’s how I interpreted it.

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          25 minutes ago

          As you said in the other comment, the sentence is grammatically OK¹. However, it’s still a huge sentence, with a few less common words (e.g. “utterance”), split into two co-ordinated clauses, and both clauses are by themselves complex.

          To add injury there’s quite a few ways to interpret “over the airwaves” (e.g. is this just radio, or does the internet count too?)

          So people are giving up parsing the whole thing.

          I also write like this, in a convoluted way², but I kind of get why people gave up.

          1. I’m not sure if it’s semantically OK due to the word “utterance”.
          2. Except when translating stuff, since I’m forced to roughly follow the “informational layout” of the original. That’s usually a PITA but it helps wonder for clarity!
    • ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It reads like a question simultaneously sent through google translate and a thesaurus. I’ve tried several times, but I just cannot work out what I’m being asked.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    My most controversial discourse* can be roughly phrased as “screw intentions”, “your intentions don’t matter”, “go pave Hell with your «intenshuns»”. It isn’t a single utterance*; I say stuff like this all the time, and regardless of the utterance used to convey said discourse, people will still disagree with it.

    The one that I’m sometimes at fault is “people who assume are pieces of shit and deserve to be treated as such”. Because sometimes it is reasonable to assume (to take something as true even if you don’t know it for sure); just nowhere as much as people do.

    *I’m being specific with terminology because it’s a big deal for me. “Discourse” is what you say, regardless of the specific words; “utterance” is a specific chain of language usage (be it voiced, gestured, written, etc.)