Poll of the Day > Do you get angry when people use literally incorrectly?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Some people literally can't stand it, there are a lot of debates on this

I literally don't.

For about a fraction of a second and let it go

Where's the "I figuratively get angry" option?

I literally never get angry

Literally has unfiguratively become a meme word, necessitating the use of a new word or term to describe what it once meant.

Nah, not at all.

"Pun not intended" is dumber, especially when it's fairly obvious it is.

Not at all.

No, but I get angry when someone says "more" unique.

Bro, unique is a binary it either is or it isn't. You can't be more or less.

Incorrectly? The figurative meaning is included in dictionaries now.

God, Please save us. This shit is literally so dumb.

It's a book series I'm writing.

One who seeks to take offense will always find a reason. I take notice, but I smile rather than frown. As a joke I might say it drives me figuratively insane, but when I know what's meant, the communication was successful.

No, because unlike the people who get annoyed, I actually understand how language works.

I'm also aware that people have been using it as a hyperbolic intensifier since at least the late 1800s. So that ship sailed looooong before any of us were even born.

josh posted...

No, but I get angry when someone says "more" unique.

Bro, unique is a binary it either is or it isn't. You can't be more or less.

There are absolutely degrees of unique. I could buy a brand new vehicle that is "unique" because it has an individual VIN that makes it distinct from others that are otherwise identical. I could also have the same car be "unique" because I had a custom paintjob applied, but still have it functionally identical to the basic models on the showroom floor. Or I could have a "unique" vehicle that I fully customized with turbos, aftermarket suspension and tires, a custom sound system, custom lighting, completely altered interior, tinted windows, etc. until the damn thing is almost a Ship of Theseus conundrum.

All three options are different levels of "unique".

How literally could you ask such a question??

I kind of just hate the world altogether now. Mainly because I used to say it a lot and it was pointed out to me.

willythemailboy posted...

All three options are different levels of "unique".

Ehh, both points of view are kind of valid. You're sort of looking at various granular pieces of a singular whole, whereas they're looking at the overall entity.

To put it another way, they're saying something is either unique or it isn't (which is true), while you are saying that something can have more individual unique elements than something else (which can also be true).



kind9 posted...

I kind of just hate the world altogether now. Mainly because I used to say it a lot and it was pointed out to me.

Don't let other people bring you down!

willythemailboy posted...

There are absolutely degrees of unique. I could buy a brand new vehicle that is "unique" because it has an individual VIN that makes it distinct from others that are otherwise identical. I could also have the same car be "unique" because I had a custom paintjob applied, but still have it functionally identical to the basic models on the showroom floor. Or I could have a "unique" vehicle that I fully customized with turbos, aftermarket suspension and tires, a custom sound system, custom lighting, completely altered interior, tinted windows, etc. until the damn thing is almost a Ship of Theseus conundrum.

All three options are different levels of "unique".

If you have a VIN no one else has the VIN is unique
If you have a custom paint job that no one else has, it's unique. If I also painted my car the same colour it's no longer unique.
If you fully customize your car and no one else has done it, it's unique. If we fully customize our cars together and we install the same parts, it's no longer unique.

It's a BINARY not a SPECTRUM.

If you install all those mods it's unique. If I install all those mods and a little hula dancing teddy bear on the dashboard it's not MORE unique. It's just both have unique cars.

Edit: I'm mad

josh posted...

Edit: I'm mad

You're also wrong.

willythemailboy posted...

You're also wrong.

You basically described three "levels" of binary unique features so. It either is or isn't lmao

Also don't make me pull out the literal definition of unique

I am literally so unique right now

I dont get angry but I consider that person stupid.

josh posted...

No, but I get angry when someone says "more" unique.

Bro, unique is a binary it either is or it isn't. You can't be more or less.

If we treat "unique" as an absolute binary identifier, nothing is truly unique. To exist as a useful concept, you have to narrow the scope (like saying that humans are a unique species because we cook our food, while ignoring that humans aren't a unique species because there are plenty of other carbon-based life forms to lump us in with), and deciding on the appropriate scope to use creates a continuum of uniqueness. Within that continuum, it is accurate to say that something that is unique within a broader scope is more unique than something that is unique within a narrower one.

One could argue that that continuum is a series of discrete binary decisions (albeit a functionally infinite one) and therefore not strictly continuous, but it still creates the basis for comparisons between entities based on the number of criteria for which those entities qualify as "unique." In the car example, a car that is unique in all three of those aspects is more unique than a car that is unique in only one of them, because 3 is more than 1.

Put differently, you cannot say that those two cars are equally unique (A=/=B). You also cannot say, however, that neither car is unique (A=/=0 and B=/=0). In a binary system, if neither A nor B can equal 0, both must equal 1, but if A cannot equal B, only one of them is allowed to equal 1. This means a binary system is logically impossible. Other values beyond 0 and 1 must be used to accurately describe the situation.

irritated but not angry

words should have meaning and there should be words for meanings - at least for the simple basic meanings.
Anyone who redefines a word so it is no longer true to it's meaning should be obliged to define a new word for the original meaning

SoreChasm posted...

Incorrectly? The figurative meaning is included in dictionaries now.

I don't care what some intern added to an online dictionary.

adjl posted...

If we treat "unique" as an absolute binary identifier, nothing is truly unique.

You've missed the point because you haven't disagreed with me.

In your literal example you said "humans are unique because we cook our food". I'm not stopping you from making that argument because it's a binary statement.

Now if you said, "cooking food makes humans more unique" then I'd be mad.

If you want you can argue any factor or set of factors makes humans unique in the scope of your discussion but at the end of the day you're either saying it's unique or it isn't.

Going back to the car example. Show me a unique VIN. Show me a "more" unique VIN. Show me the "most" unique VIN.

You can't. They're all unique. And I CAN say they're all equally unique.

josh posted...

You've missed the point because you haven't disagreed with me.

In your literal example you said "humans are unique because we cook our food". I'm not stopping you from making that argument because it's a binary statement.

Now if you said, "cooking food makes humans more unique" then I'd be mad.

If you want you can argue any factor or set of factors makes humans unique in the scope of your discussion but at the end of the day you're either saying it's unique or it isn't.

Going back to the car example. Show me a unique VIN. Show me a "more" unique VIN. Show me the "most" unique VIN.

You can't. They're all unique. And I CAN say they're all equally unique.

Say you make 100 vases and the first 98 are all the same size, shape, and color, then on the 99th one your make it still the same size and shape but a different color, then on the 100th vase you make it a different size, shape and color, how is the 100th vase not more unique than the 99th one?

Muscles posted...

Say you make 100 vases and the first 98 are all the same size, shape, and color, then on the 99th one your make it still the same size and shape but a different color, then on the 100th vase you make it a different size, shape and color, how is the 100th vase not more unique than the 99th one?

If the 99th and 100th vase are one of a kind unique how can the 100th be "more" one of a kind unique? They're absolutely unique in their own way.

josh posted...

If the 99th and 100th vase are one of a kind unique how can the 100th be "more" one of a kind unique? They're absolutely unique in their own way.

Its more unique because it has more unique properties

Muscles posted...

Its more unique because it has more unique properties

99th and 100th vases are unique in their own rights. What you're TRYING to say is that the 100th vase has more unique features but that doesn't make it more unique.

Revelation34 posted...

I don't care what some intern added to an online dictionary.

And I don't care what you think, Rev. :)

Muscles posted...

Its more unique because it has more unique properties

No, you just dont understand what the word means. Something cant be more singular.

josh posted...

If the 99th and 100th vase are one of a kind unique how can the 100th be "more" one of a kind unique? They're absolutely unique in their own way.

If nothing else, the 99th could be packaged and shipped in the same materials as the first 98, while the 100th could not.

josh posted...

What you're TRYING to say is that the 100th vase has more unique features but that doesn't make it more unique.

In fact it does, but no one expects you to accept that self-evident fact.

willythemailboy posted...

In fact it does, but no one expects you to accept that self-evident fact.

Incorrect, and misusing fact and self-evident doesn't change that.
It makes it more unusual, but there is no 'more unique'. There's unique in more ways, but that isn't the same thing.

It used to bug me, but I recently found out that many "classic" writers have used "literally" hyperbolically:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/famous-writers-used-literally-figuratively

willythemailboy posted...

If nothing else, the 99th could be packaged and shipped in the same materials as the first 98, while the 100th could not.

But the 99th is a different colour to the 1 through 98 as well as base 100 and is also a different size to 100. It's unique - it's one of a kind. In that subset of 100 there's no other vase like it. The same goes for 100. They're both unique.

willythemailboy posted...

In fact it does, but no one expects you to accept that self-evident fact.

Mate, "unique" literally means "being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.". How can something be "more" than one of a kind or "less" than one of a kind. You can't just say "in fact it does". The definition of unique is the self-evident fact that you're conveniently ignoring.

Honestly, this is why unique bugs me so much and why I brought it up. Because at least with literally most people understand that they're using hyperbole to communicate their point whereas with unique people just straight up don't understand what it means or why they say it.

There isn't few reasons to even use literally in a sentence, literally or figuratively.

josh posted...

Now if you said, "cooking food makes humans more unique" then I'd be mad.

And rightly so, because that statement would make no sense.

Saying that humans are more unique than other species, however, and including cooking food as one of the unique features of the species that contributed to that assessment, could be fair game (though that would be a ludicrously complicated assessment that could never hope to be comprehensive enough to draw any definite conclusions and I'd dismiss it on those grounds).

josh posted...

Mate, "unique" literally means "being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else."

In that case, none of the vases are unique because they're all vases. Or if one was more of a jar instead of a vase, none of them are unique because they're all made of clay. Or if one of them was made of glass instead of clay, none of them are unique because they're all silica-based. Or if one of them was made of metal instead of some manner of silicate, none of them are unique because they're all man-made. Or if one of them was a naturally-occurring rock formation that just happened to be the right shape to be used as a jar, none of them are unique because they can all be used to hold things.

Nothing is truly unique. If you dig hard enough and interpret "kind" loosely enough, you can find commonalities between any two objects that mean they are not "one of a kind." That means that, for the word "unique" to have any application at all, it has to be framed as "unique, except for all these other aspects in which it isn't." That qualifier is not binary, and given that that qualifier is the logical complement of the usage of the term "unique," that means the usage of the term "unique" must also not be binary.

Shadowbird_RH posted...

It makes it more unusual, but there is no 'more unique'. There's unique in more ways, but that isn't the same thing.

Is it not? Why would somebody who achieves uniqueness more frequently not be considered better at uniquing?

josh posted...

Honestly, this is why unique bugs me so much and why I brought it up. Because at least with literally most people understand that they're using hyperbole to communicate their point whereas with unique people just straight up don't understand what it means or why they say it.

They say it to communicate the point of "this thing more noticeably stands out as being unique," which in turn means the traits that they have assessed have qualified as "unique" within their colloquial scope with remarkable frequency. It's not wrong to say that "more unusual" is perhaps technically the better way to phrase it, but to use "more unique" to mean "I've identified your traits as being unique more often than for those to whom I'm comparing you" is well within the bounds of reasonable colloquial logic and easily understood by everyone involved.

adjl posted...

Is it not? Why would somebody who achieves uniqueness more frequently not be considered better at uniquing?

Is a dodecahedron more flat than a cube?

Shadowbird_RH posted...

Is a dodecahedron more flat than a cube?

Depends on the height.

adjl posted...

And rightly so, because that statement would make no sense.

Saying that humans are more unique than other species, however, and including cooking food as one of the unique features of the species that contributed to that assessment, could be fair game (though that would be a ludicrously complicated assessment that could never hope to be comprehensive enough to draw any definite conclusions and I'd dismiss it on those grounds).

In that case, none of the vases are unique because they're all vases. Or if one was more of a jar instead of a vase, none of them are unique because they're all made of clay. Or if one of them was made of glass instead of clay, none of them are unique because they're all silica-based. Or if one of them was made of metal instead of some manner of silicate, none of them are unique because they're all man-made. Or if one of them was a naturally-occurring rock formation that just happened to be the right shape to be used as a jar, none of them are unique because they can all be used to hold things.

Nothing is truly unique. If you dig hard enough and interpret "kind" loosely enough, you can find commonalities between any two objects that mean they are not "one of a kind." That means that, for the word "unique" to have any application at all, it has to be framed as "unique, except for all these other aspects in which it isn't." That qualifier is not binary, and given that that qualifier is the logical complement of the usage of the term "unique," that means the usage of the term "unique" must also not be binary.

Is it not? Why would somebody who achieves uniqueness more frequently not be considered better at uniquing?

They say it to communicate the point of "this thing more noticeably stands out as being unique," which in turn means the traits that they have assessed have qualified as "unique" within their colloquial scope with remarkable frequency. It's not wrong to say that "more unusual" is perhaps technically the better way to phrase it, but to use "more unique" to mean "I've identified your traits as being unique more often than for those to whom I'm comparing you" is well within the bounds of reasonable colloquial logic and easily understood by everyone involved.

This is complete and utter idiocy. To be the only one of its kind does not mean that it needs to be unique in every way. If one thing sets it apart from all others, it is unique. Its such a simple concept.

Like, if theres a single purple dog in the world, that dog is unique. You wouldnt say he isnt because hes got four legs just like all the other dogs. How can you not understand that?

Glob posted...

This is complete and utter idiocy. To be the only one of its kind does not mean that it needs to be unique in every way. If one thing sets it apart from all others, it is unique. Its such a simple concept.

Then everything is unique, because you can inevitably find something about everything that sets it apart from everything else. Every one of those hundred vases is unique, since even though the aim was to make the first 98 identical, there are going to be variations in pigment density, clay density, water content, clay composition, crystal structure, shape at the microscopic level... scenarios where being perfectly identical is even possible are vanishingly rare, especially at the macroscopic scale

The conclusion is the same: to describe something as "unique" or "not unique" carries a laundry list of qualifiers that specify which traits are included and excluded. Sometimes those qualifiers are explicitly specified, more commonly they're implicit, but either way they're there. That list of qualifiers is not binary, therefore identifying something as "not unique" also cannot be.

This ultimately boils down to the distinction between "unique" as a logical concept and "unique" as a practical concept. Logically, uniqueness is indeed binary. The distinction is made and applied entirely in a vacuum where nothing else needs to be considered. In practice, however, nothing happens in a vacuum where nothing else needs to be considered, and that means there are a whole bunch of extra qualifiers implied and specified to define the scope of assessing whether or not something is unique. That turns it into a matter of "it's unique if we define the scope like this, but it's not unique if we define the scope this other way," which is decidedly not binary when viewing the assessment as a whole.

When you say "this vase is not unique," you are saying "I don't care about the ways in which this vase is unique." When you say "this vase is unique," you are saying "the ways in which this vase is unique matter to me enough to make it stand out." When you say "this vase is more unique than that vase," you are saying "this vase is unique in more ways that matter to me and therefore stands out compared to that vase." This is what it means to translate the logical concept of uniqueness into practical (to say nothing of colloquial) speech.

adjl posted...

Then everything is unique, because you can inevitably find something about everything that sets it apart from everything else. Every one of those hundred vases is unique, since even though the aim was to make the first 98 identical, there are going to be variations in pigment density, clay density, water content, clay composition, crystal structure, shape at the microscopic level... scenarios where being perfectly identical is even possible are vanishingly rare, especially at the macroscopic scale

The conclusion is the same: to describe something as "unique" or "not unique" carries a laundry list of qualifiers that specify which traits are included and excluded. Sometimes those qualifiers are explicitly specified, more commonly they're implicit, but either way they're there. That list of qualifiers is not binary, therefore identifying something as "not unique" also cannot be.

This ultimately boils down to the distinction between "unique" as a logical concept and "unique" as a practical concept. Logically, uniqueness is indeed binary. The distinction is made and applied entirely in a vacuum where nothing else needs to be considered. In practice, however, nothing happens in a vacuum where nothing else needs to be considered, and that means there are a whole bunch of extra qualifiers implied and specified to define the scope of assessing whether or not something is unique. That turns it into a matter of "it's unique if we define the scope like this, but it's not unique if we define the scope this other way," which is decidedly not binary when viewing the assessment as a whole.

When you say "this vase is not unique," you are saying "I don't care about the ways in which this vase is unique." When you say "this vase is unique," you are saying "the ways in which this vase is unique matter to me enough to make it stand out." When you say "this vase is more unique than that vase," you are saying "this vase is unique in more ways that matter to me and therefore stands out compared to that vase." This is what it means to translate the logical concept of uniqueness into practical (to say nothing of colloquial) speech.

No shit.

Youre just stating the obvious about a word that you should have been able to understand years ago mate. You genuinely make me worry about the future of mankind.

So... "more unique" is a perfectly valid phrase because it reflects an interpretation of the concept of uniqueness that is fundamentally required for the term to have any practical applicability.

adjl posted...

In that case, none of the vases are unique because they're all vases.

You can argue that none of the vases are unique because they all have a similar shape. You can argue all of the vases are unique because at some molecular level they're different. These are all CORRECT usages of unique because at the end of the day you're making BINARY comparisons. Hell, you can even say the spelling of my baby's name "Georgus" is unique when in reality it might not be but it's close enough it may as well be.

All humans are unique. Even identical twins are unique. But that doesn't mean some human with five arms and a purple toe on the other side of a planet is more unique. YES, there are more differences, YES, they may be more special in certain ways but NO, they're not "more" unique.

edit: you might also argue that the twins aren't unique and the person with 5 arms is unique as well (because of the five arms and purple toe). You might argue in terms of having ten toes none of them are unique. These are all binary (they either are unique or they're not).

adjl posted...

They say it to communicate the point of "this thing more noticeably stands out as being unique," which in turn means the traits that they have assessed have qualified as "unique" within their colloquial scope with remarkable frequency. It's not wrong to say that "more unusual" is perhaps technically the better way to phrase it, but to use "more unique" to mean "I've identified your traits as being unique more often than for those to whom I'm comparing you" is well within the bounds of reasonable colloquial logic and easily understood by everyone involved.

And now we circle back to the beginning of the conversation. Yes, I'm still mad at this incorrect colloquial usage - even if you use it.
When someone says they wanted to pick a car that is "more unique" you know they actually just wanted to say they wanted to pick a car that "stands out" or "makes a statement". The quantifiable amount of "unique" features doesn't even factor into the decision. That's why we have to walk around now saying "truly unique" when we want to communicate something that's one of a kind.

actually wtf am I talking about we don't need to say truly unique. We just have to say unique. It's the other people adding extra words.

Just woke up

Glob posted...

This is complete and utter idiocy.

Glob posted...

You genuinely make me worry about the future of mankind.

adjl takes the time to fully articulate his opinions without insulting others.
So why are you acting like this?

Do you get angry when people use literally incorrectly?

yes, but using literally figuratively is literally not incorrect

>:)