this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
586 points (99.7% liked)

Tumblr

149 readers
813 users here now

Welcome to /c/Tumblr

All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.

Rule 1: Be Civil, Not CursedThis isn’t your personal call-out post.

  • No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
  • No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
  • Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited

Rule 2: No Forbidden PostsSome things belong in the drafts forever. That means:

  • No spam or scams
  • No porn or sexually explicit content
  • No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
  • NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged

If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

Is it really pedantry if the phrase makes no sense with the incorrect order

Its like "I could care less" - so you do care? Start making sense and I'll understand you. Words have meaning god damn it.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

I see this one a lot, and it always says to me that people just use these phrases because other people use them, without ever thinking about what they mean.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If a phrase conveys the opposite of their literal meaning, and the speaker and the audience both know it, then it is pedantic. Choosing to derail whatever the topic is in favor of criticizing someone's understandability when everyone did understand them is pedantic.

I get it, I hate the way people use "literally". It's terrible, it's usually unneeded, and it just makes any actual correct use of literally have less impact. But I'm not gonna correct people who say it wrong, because I do know what they meant.

If they said "I could care less" and you're comfortable enough in your understanding of the conversation to know for a fact they actually mean they do not care about it, then they did make sense and you did understand them.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's a problem, because I'm never quite sure if they're saying they care a little bit, and are using the phrase literally, or don't care, and are a moron.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

That's quite a problem. You tend to get those by dividing things into black and white like that. I've known quite a few smart people that just still don't care about English being imperfect, and I've met a few dumb ones that care greatly about details like word choice and ignore the conversation to focus on errors.

Splitting the world between "people who do a thing you agree with" and "morons" is a choice, but its one I try to avoid as a rule.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

If they said "I could care less" and you're comfortable enough in your understanding of the conversation to know for a fact they actually mean they do not care about it

And what if I am not comfortable enough in my understanding? When someone is hard to understand because of how non-standard their use of language is, it is a communication barrier, not just pedantry.

[–] GandalftheBlack@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

And of course literally has been used in both sense for hundreds of years.

[–] AugustWest@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It’s not like that at all. “I could care less” is just wrong. The phrase is “I couldn’t care less.” “I could care less” is more like “one and the same” or “for all intensive purposes.”

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“I could care less” is more like “one and the same” or “for all intents and purposes.”

I think you got that mixed up there 🤔

[–] AugustWest@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Guess my brain couldn’t bear to type “all intensive purposes.”

[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Just because you’re being pedantic doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong to say it.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

yes it really is

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Idioms don't have to make literal sense. How do you feel about being "head over heels" about someone?

[–] wieson@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago

It should be heels over head, obviously. It probably was that way.

In my language, we say "neck over head"

[–] jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

I dont like it

[–] hakase@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

/c/badlinguistics

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what part doesn't make sense about the original

[–] jjagaimo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

have your cake and eat it too

Alone it sounds normal but doesnt make sense in context because its supposed to be

eat your cake and have it too

Because the idiom is supposed to mean that you can't eat it and somehow still have it. The first implies you got cake and then were unable to eat it which doesnt make sense because thats literally the point of cake

Wikipedia:

you cannot enjoy two incompatible things at the same time; once you eat the cake, you no longer have it. It highlights the idea of trade-offs or making choices in life.

Apparently have is supposed to be synonymous with "keep" but language has evolved

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It can sound misleading but the second part doesn't actually mean the "having" at the first part has ended. It's not incorrect, it's just more confusing than the other way around.

I wouldn't say the language has changed. You either have something or don't. If you eat your cake you don't have it anymore

[–] FundMECFS@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

It’s only pedantry if you force others to do it your way.

I've always taken "I could care less" to be sarcastic. Like "It's technically possible, but quite unlikely."

[–] BootLoop@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah if they cared enough to care less. Therefore they don't care enough to care less about something.

[–] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Therefore they couldn't care less, by your own logic

[–] BootLoop@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 week ago

They could care less, they just don't care enough to want to care less.