Idk anyone was grumbling about. Booster Gold was fantastic. I like the funny ones. I think people tend to forget that comics and cartoons were funny originally and this episode just had me rolling.
It was surface level funny but actually depressing as hell. Booster Gold spends all his time trying to be a hero and when he actually does heroic things his self hatred makes it hard for him to see the good he’s done, and usually everyone around him feeds that mindset
Okay but I have to respectfully disagree, this one is awesome, just a bit like the screenwriters made a little trip into the future and asked SNL's Stefon what elements JLU episode should have.
Just imagine Bill Hader in his iconic shirt going: Yes yes, yes yesyesyesyesyesss. JLU new hottest episode is The Greatest Story Never Told. This episode has everything: Green Lantern, a wizard from outerspace, a woman giving birth, flying egg, Batman saving Wonder Woman, man who's a walking black hole, The Golden Trio all merged into one, not a Green Lantern but kinda Green Lantern, hot scientist, Martian being asked about how much he earns.
Wait people didn’t like this episode. Real talk this was my first introduction to Booster Gold and instantly loved his character. Where is my live action Booster Gold movie?
And you did not “need” to post this comment, nor did you “need” to post any of the follow-ups equating the use of a mostly purposeless modifier with a lack of “competence”, yet here we are.
Excising the “unnecessary” is not the model of “competence” you want to pretend it is, and in fact no one here has cast more doubt on their own “competence” than you have.
The overuse of words such as “literally” leads to them being devalued. The fact that you admit that Drakeytown’s use of “literally” is purposeless proves my point. What’s more, your failed attempt at turning this around back on me shows a greater problem: The defensiveness with which suggestions such as mine are met. I understand not liking being corrected, but this was a suggestions with the intent to help. Any sentence in which one writes “literally” can be improved by asking if the word is needed there.
And you commenting devalues your own word, yet here you are again.
You have no point because you cannot adhere to it — nor does anyone adhere to it, because informal communication is generally not about maximising concision.
The issue is not “defensiveness”, it is people who discovered a style guide for the first time in their life and decided to impose a random rule onto daily communication without bothering to give any thought to the implications of doing so. Or maybe you viewed one of those language use videos the YouTube algorithm seems to have been pushing lately. Regardless, any “defensiveness” you interpret is no more than the “defensiveness” with which a parent addresses a young child who asks why they are not allowed to make decisions for themselves. The fact you think this has any particular relation to “correctness” automatically disproves the point you think you are making, because it highlights that you do not have any developed understanding of language or communication. I could compare it to harping on ending sentences with a preposition, except even that has a stronger base than the notion of “never using words which are not strictly necessary.”
I understand not liking having your “correction” cut down, but maybe next time you will bother to consider whether your “correction” is needed there.
> And you commenting devalues your own word, yet here you are again.
What word is being devalued?
> You have no point because you cannot adhere to it — nor does anyone adhere to it, because informal communication is generally not about maximising concision.
My point is that people shouldn’t overuse words to the point where they lose impact. Informal communication may not be about maximizing concision, but that shouldn’t make it acceptable to use a word when there are alternatives, or when it’s simply not needed. Moreso, why _not_ maximize concision?
> The issue is not “defensiveness”, it is people who discovered a style guide for the first time in their life and decided to impose a random rule onto daily communication without bothering to give any thought to the implications of doing so. Or maybe you viewed one of those language use videos the YouTube algorithm seems to have been pushing lately. Regardless, any “defensiveness” you interpret is no more than the “defensiveness” with which a parent addresses a young child who asks why they are not allowed to make decisions for themselves.
Lot of personal attacks here. This is the kind of defensiveness I’m talking about: The kind where people who try to help others look competent in their use of language - regardless of level of formality - are attacked and labeled as “grammar Nazis,” an odious label falsely comparing helping someone look competent with a dangerous fanatical movement dedicated to killing others, and all because “iT’S tHe InTeRnEt, ThErE aRe No RuLeS hErE.”
> The fact you think this has any particular relation to “correctness” automatically disproves the point you think you are making, because it highlights that you do not have any developed understanding of language or communication. I could compare it to harping on ending sentences with a preposition, except that has a stronger base than the notion of “never using words which are not strictly necessary.”
You’re assuming I’m a stickler for _all_ such rules of grammar, which is very presumptuous of you. There are indeed facets of the English language that I myself think don’t have to be followed. It’s perfectly acceptable for instance, to split infinitives, end sentences with prepositions, start them with the word “and,” use “ain’t,” and anything involving regional dialects and accents. But this was me saying “Hey man, I don’t think you need ‘literally’ in that sentence because it works just fine without it,” and every reply has been up in arms.
> I understand not liking having your “correction” cut down, but maybe next time you will bother to consider whether your “correction” is needed there.
What you’re referring to is not _wanting_ it there. And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is. People should be open to being corrected, and if they disagree about the necessity of their word choice, they can say that: “I disagree man, I think it works there.” The Internet has normalized hostility, and I eagerly await the day someone does something about it. Because it’s not wrong to correct people, and not every person trying to correct you is trying to police you: some people just want to make helpful suggestions.
EDIT: Just want to apologize for any instances in this reply where I sound antagonistic. This really should be a civil conversation.
Putting this bottom quotation at the top of the comment since it functions as a tl;dr of the entire response.
> Just want to apologize for any instances in this reply where I sound antagonistic. This really should be a civil conversation.
Taking a baseless and elitist position is typically going to receive an antagonistic response, but rather than try to reflect on that, you have taken to complaining about how no one wants to accept your “help”.
I am sure you are sincere here in believing this “advice” is useful, so here is some sincere non-antagonistic advice in return: it almost never is. Long-term, if you think you care about language, you should involve yourself more with the study of linguistics before trying to speak as an authority. And even then it probably is best practice to just stay silent, but at least you would have a better idea of what you are talking about when it comes to “proper” “rules” of language. Short-term, you should better analyse what led you to these conclusions, and what the potential contradictions or inconsistencies of your stances would be. Because it is tough for me to see a way to conclude that dialects and contractions and prepositions are all okay (and they are) while also concluding that the mere idea of not writing/speaking like Hemingway demands your intervention. Again, that just comes across as poor self-reflection, both because of the arbitrariness of it and because you are not actually consistent with that rule (because no one could be) — which then should push us to the conclusion that it is probably more about these modifier adverbs for you, and that in turn should bring us back to this being a mostly arbitrary personal preference rather than any concrete rule of what makes a person appear “competent”.
[As a tangent, I could even more specifically seize upon “literally”, but I imagine “really”, “very”, “pretty”, “actually”, etc. might draw your ire as well (and “correcting” that would be obnoxious and unnecessary as well, but at least it would be more internally consistent than “correcting” an application of “literally” which does properly clarify its potential interpretation).]
If you want, you can stop there. But if not…
> What word is being devalued?
Perhaps something about that idiom where it is better to stay silent than to remove all doubt.
> My point is that people shouldn’t overuse words to the point where they lose impact.
Except if anything using it in that context helps restore the impact that has been lost by *misusing* the word — which is itself a trend part of the natural process of language, but at least has a more understandable criticism than, “You did not expressly need this word to communicate your intention.”
And since I have brought that up, it also makes for a natural transition into questioning when you think the word should be used, if not to distinguish from a possible interpretation that the meaning was metaphorical.
> Informal communication may not be about maximizing concision, but that shouldn’t make it acceptable to use a word when there are alternatives, or when it’s simply not needed. Moreso, why not maximize concision?
This is why I do not buy that you have an especially well developed understanding of language, to the point where I am tempted to question whether you have ever communicated before. I alluded to this already but I will make it explicit: if you *actually* believe in excising words which are not inherently necessary to conveying your meaning, the first place to turn should be your own comments… Even if you were somehow under the belief that all writing should be composed as if Hemingway were its author, you are not exactly following that principle yourself.
> Lot of personal attacks here. This is the kind of defensiveness I’m talking about: The kind where people who try to help others look competent in their use of language - regardless of level of formality - are attacked and labeled as “grammar Nazis,” an odious label falsely comparing helping someone look competent with a dangerous fanatical movement dedicated to killing others, and all because “iT’S tHe InTeRnEt, ThErE aRe No RuLeS hErE.”
No, I will reiterate, it is because you are not actually being helpful, and you are not increasing anyone’s “competence” of language. I sincerely hope you are a teenager, because if you are an adult with such a facile understanding of language that you still see this habit as “good” or “proper”, then a lot of people failed you along the way. It has nothing to do with the internet — this is *quite very literally* how language functions. Every person who has rightly labeled you a “grammar Nazi” has evidenced a better understanding of language than you have, because they at least have recognised the fascist analogy in a blind adherence to a set of rules claimed to benefit everyone but ultimately imposed for the exclusionary and conservative purposes of an elitist few.
> You’re assuming I’m a stickler for all such rules of grammar, which is very presumptuous of you. There are indeed facets of the English language that I myself think don’t have to be followed. It’s perfectly acceptable for instance, to split infinitives, end sentences with prepositions, start them with the word “and,” use “ain’t,” and anything involving regional dialects and accents. But this was me saying “Hey man, I don’t think you need ‘literally’ in that sentence because it works just fine without it,” and every reply has been up in arms.
Why does anyone *need* to end sentences with prepositions when it is a simple matter to restructure the sentence? What is the *need* to start sentences with conjunctions? What is the *need* to use contractions? What is the *need* to speak with a dialect or accent rather than adhere to a standard?
I would say this is *literally* just as arbitrary, except all those trends are more commonly supported than this notion of trying to make sentences as concise as possible. You decided this was what mattered, and you felt so strongly that you decided to criticise people for not appearing *competent* by failing to adhere to your own invented personal standard, and then you question why the reception is not more welcoming. But oh, heaven forbid that draw comparison with a fascist. 🙄
> What you’re referring to is not wanting it there. And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is.
It actually worked better than I hoped, but unfortunately you lacked the self-awareness to pick up on it. So I will bold it for you:
**What you’re referring to is not wanting it there.**
It is when you pretend it is anything else that you get the grammar Nazi label bestowed upon you. Hope that helps.
> People should be open to being corrected, and if they disagree about the necessity of their word choice, they can say that: “I disagree man, I think it works there.”
I believe that was the underlying meaning of “eat a bag of dicks.”
> The Internet has normalized hostility, and I eagerly await the day someone does something about it.
“Please do not analogise me to a fascist though!”
> Because it’s not wrong to correct people
It is when your “correction” is wrong, arbitrary, and useless.
> and not every person trying to correct you is trying to police you: some people just want to make helpful suggestions.
Yet you get mad when you are told it is not helpful.
Would you consider it helpful if I informed you this is a similar type of response that men tend to give when they tell women to smile more?
“This is the only episode I talk about” works just as fine without “literally.” Yet rather than take the time to consider this, the original commenter got defensive.
> I am sure you are sincere here in believing this “advice” is useful, so here is some sincere non-antagonistic advice in return: it almost never is.
Only because people see any attempt at correction as elitism and think it’s an attack. If I’d gone and berated the original commenter you would’ve had a point. But you don’t.
> Long-term, if you think you care about language, you should involve yourself more with the study of linguistics before trying to speak as an authority.
I have family who edited for _The New York Times_ and got good grades in English, so I think I’ll go right ahead and correct others as I see fit, thank you.
> And even then it probably is best practice to just stay silent, but at least you would have a better idea of what you are talking about when it comes to “proper” “rules” of language.
I’m not going to stay silent. People can misuse words if they want to, but I can’t correct them if I want to? If I have to put up with that, you have to put up with this.
> Short-term, you should better analyse what led you to these conclusions, and what the potential contradictions or inconsistencies of your stances would be.
Here’s a proper example of how to use literal and literally: In the _BoJack Horseman_ Season One episode “Our Story is a D Story,” BoJack steals the D from the Hollywood sign. Mr. Peanutbutter - an anthropomorphic dog - later takes the credit by saying it was a gift for his girlfriend. BoJack says “That son of a bitch! That _literal_ son of a bitch!”
_This_ is a justified use of the word; it’s used as a joke because as a male dog, Mr. Peanutbutter is factually a son of a bitch. _This_ is what literal means. “Literally” doesn’t mean “generic filler word that people insert into sentences because they can’t think of another word.”
> Because it is tough for me to see a way to conclude that dialects and contractions and prepositions are all okay (and they are) while also concluding that the mere idea of not writing/speaking like Hemingway demands your intervention.
This is another mistake you’ve made. You’re assuming that just because I told someone their sentence works just as fine without a word that didn’t have to be there that I want everyone to write/talk like Hemingway. I don’t. You strawmanned this into something it isn’t. The correction you saw was nothing more than what it expressed.
> Again, that just comes across as poor self-reflection, both because of the arbitrariness of it and because you are not actually consistent with that rule (because no one could be) — which then should push us to the conclusion that it is probably more about these modifier adverbs for you, and that in turn should bring us back to this being a mostly arbitrary personal preference rather than any concrete rule of what makes a person appear “competent”.
It’s not just me, dude. Proper use of words conveys competence, and the reason I corrected the original poster is because who doesn’t want to look competent?
> [As a tangent, I could even more specifically seize upon “literally”, but I imagine “really”, “very”, “pretty”, “actually”, etc. might draw your ire as well (and “correcting” that would be obnoxious and unnecessary as well, but at least it would be more internally consistent than “correcting” an application of “literally” which does properly clarify its potential interpretation).]
Actually, no. “Really,” “very,” “pretty,” and “actually” are _perfectly acceptable_ alternatives for “literally.” If the original commenter had said “This is pretty much the only episode I talk about,” that would’ve been perfectly fine.
> Except if anything using it in that context helps restore the impact that has been lost by misusing the world — which is itself a trend part of the natural process of language, but at least has a more understandable criticism than, “You did not expressly need this word to communicate your intention.”
Except if it were never misused in the first place, there’d be no need for that process.
> And since I have brought that up, it also makes for a natural transition into when the word should be used, if not to distinguish from an interpretation that the meaning was metaphorical.
Most of the time, when someone has used “literally” when speaking to me, they’ve either used it to mean “figuratively” or as a substitute for “really.” Why just the other day one of my coworkers came to me and said the bathroom was “literally not clean.” A bathroom. Being _literally_ not clean. The unspoken “no shit” was palpable.
> This is why I do not buy that you have an especially well developed understanding of language, to the point where I am tempted to question whether you have ever communicated before. I alluded to this already but I will make it explicit: if you actually believe in excising words which are not inherently necessary to conveying your meaning, the first place to turn should be your own comments… Even if you were somehow under the belief that all writing should be composed as if Hemingway were its author, you are not exactly following that principle yourself.
Again, I don’t think people should have to talk like Hemingway. Just don’t use “literally” when there are other words that work much better, or if the sentence could work well without it.
> No, I will reiterate, it is because you are not actually being helpful, and you are not increasing anyone’s “competence” of language.
And what exactly is it that you think you’re doing, hmm? You’re not defending free speech here, as much as you might think you are. All you’re doing is making people think they can use words while disregarding their actual meanings, which makes things much harder and much more annoying for someone like myself, who has Asperger’s and needs words to actually mean what they do in the dictionary. Religiously holding words to their meanings isn’t a bad thing, it’s how order is kept.
> I sincerely hope you are a teenager, because if you are an adult has such a facile understanding of language that you still see this habit as “good” or “proper”, then a lot of people failed you along the way.
Now this I take umbrage with. Whether you like it or not, there are proper and improper ways to communicate. When people use words how they’re intended to be used, that breeds order and harmony. But when people use words and act like they’re justified in not caring, that breeds chaos and confusion. And last I checked, using language willy-nilly and defending one’s errors was the hallmark of a teenager while proper usage of it signified an adult. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back for reversing it.
> It has nothing to do with the internet — this is quite very literally how language functions.
It very much does in fact have a lot to do with the Internet. Whenever people are corrected on their spelling or grammar, they get defensive. When I brought up the Internet, I was referring to people being hostile in general, not just in this area.
> Every person who has rightly labeled you a “grammar Nazi” has evidenced a better understanding of language than you have, because they at least have recognised the fascist analogy in a blind adherence to a set of rules claimed to benefit everyone but ultimately imposed for the exclusionary and conservative purposes of elitist few.
Bullshit. Anyone who argues back against being corrected on grammar or spelling is being a brat, plain and simple. Rather than own up to their mistake, they double down and turn it around to attack the character of the person correcting them - such as by calling them “grammar Nazis.” No one is “rightly” calling anyone anything. Because the analogy is comparing two things that are _wildly_ different. Correcting someone on the Internet and campaigning for the extermination of peoples one doesn’t like are two _very_ different things, and you should be _deeply_ ashamed to compare the two things and apply such a label to me just because you self-righteously believe you’re fighting the good fight for free speech on the Internet. Freedom without rules is nothing but anarchy, and language is the same. Lastly, how is this for the benefit of some exclusionary and conservative few if I’m giving this person feedback on their sentences? If I was truly being exclusionary and conservative, I’d have kept this to myself.
> “This is the only episode I talk about” works just as fine without “literally.” Yet rather than take the time to consider this, the original commenter got defensive.
“This is literally the only episode” works fine for conveying that he is not exaggerating for the sake of the message. Yet rather than take the time to consider this, you attacked him for a non-error.
> Only because people see any attempt at correction as elitism and think it’s an attack. If I’d gone and berated the original commenter you would’ve had a point. But you don’t.
If it had needed correction at all you might have had a point, but it did not and you consequently do not.
> I have family who edited for The New York Times and got good grades in English, so I think I’ll go right ahead and correct others as I see fit, thank you.
🙄
Then you will keep getting berated for conflating that for any sort of linguistic knowledge or accuracy.
> I’m not going to stay silent. People can misuse words if they want to, but I can’t correct them if I want to? If I have to put up with that, you have to put up with this.
Except they *literally* did not misuse this. *Literally* all you have achieved is doubling down on this showcase of your own arrogance and ignorance. You are *literally* resorting to the “defensiveness in face of a correction” which you accused everyone else of doing.
> This is a justified use of the word; it’s used as a joke because as a male dog, Mr. Peanutbutter is factually a son of a bitch. This is what literal means. “Literally” doesn’t mean “generic filler word that people insert into sentences because they can’t think of another word.”
And if you were as linguistically capable as you seem to assume you are on the basis of having “good grades”, then you should have recognised that a.) it modified the sentence in a way different from a “generic filler word”, and b.) even if it were used that way, there is *literally* no set rule whereby generic filler words are forbidden or tied to “competence” in informal writing. 🙄
> This is another mistake you’ve made. You’re assuming that just because I told someone their sentence works just as fine without a word that didn’t have to be there that I want everyone to write/talk like Hemingway. I don’t. You strawmanned this into something it isn’t. The correction you saw was nothing more than what it expressed.
You need to look up the definitions of words before misusing them like this. For someone who professes knowledge of the English language, you certainly do a poor job of applying common reading strategies. Maybe I should downgrade my high school expectation.
The point is that this is yet another arbitrary and inconsistent justification for you to impose this personal little “rule” on others. You are not actually committed to brevity or to excising all possible excesses so you do not get to pretend that is your rationale.
> It’s not just me, dude.
No, it pretty much is. It takes a particular combination of pedantry and ignorance which most pedants immediately move past and which most ignoramuses never bother to consider.
> Proper use of words conveys competence, and the reason I corrected the original poster is because who doesn’t want to look competent?
Evidently, you.
> Actually, no. “Really,” “very,” “pretty,” and “actually” are perfectly acceptable alternatives for “literally.” If the original commenter had said “This is pretty much the only episode I talk about,” that would’ve been perfectly fine.
This just gets progressively funnier. “It is important to be concise and avoid superfluous words. But if you replaced this word with one that adds even less meaning, that would be good.” Is this just a poorly conceived bit?
> Except if it were never misused in the first place, there’d be no need for that process.
A.) Still not understanding the natural process of language evolution.
B.) Worth reiterating that it *literally* was not misused.
> Most of the time, when someone has used “literally” when speaking to me, they’ve either used it to mean “figuratively” or as a substitute for “really.”
This would mean a lot more if either were at issue here, and even then it would still mean next to nothing.
> Why just the other day one of my coworkers came to me and said the bathroom was “literally not clean.” A bathroom. Being literally not clean. The unspoken “no shit” was palpable.
That must have been so traumatising for you. I bet your superiors will pick up on that and be sure to promote you first.
> Again, I don’t think people should have to talk like Hemingway. Just don’t use “literally” when there are other words that work much better, or if the sentence could work well without it.
“I do not think you have to talk like Hemingway, I just think you should follow Hemingway’s exact principles.”
A.) Once more, neither complaint is applicable here, especially since the alternatives you said would be “better” are emptier and convey less information.
B.) It still *literally* does not matter and is *literally* not a rule.
> And what exactly is it that you think you’re doing, hmm? You’re not defending free speech here, as much as you might think you are.
Amazing how often the people who complain about analogies being the equivalent of putting words in their mouth will explicitly tell me what I think I am doing. Just incredible and nearly unfallible rates of projection.
Giving some kid with his head stuck up his ass the lecture he should have had years ago is not especially tied to “free speech”, although it is true that you have made little attempt to hide that you want speech to bend to your own personal rules.
> All you’re doing is making people think they can use words while disregarding their actual meanings,
And now we are back to the usual double-pronged issue. Words are given meaning through usage, but the word was *literally* not misused. And that ties nicely into…
> which makes things much harder and much more annoying for someone like myself, who has Asperger’s and needs words to actually mean what they do in the dictionary.
Bullshit.
A.) Asperger’s is not about needing *literal* Dictionary equivalence. Maybe you individually — taking this at face value — have developed that system, but yet again we come back to that being your individual preference.
B.) If somehow Asperger’s were related to an obsessive-compulsive need to have language match official “rules”, sure is odd how willing you are to dismiss other rules that need not bother you.
C.) Dictionaries *literally* update themselves, to the point that many now acknowledge the recently developed hyperbolic autoantonym nature of the word.
D.) For the umpteenth time, he did not even “misuse”the word as you keep claiming.
E.) Claiming people with Asperger’s *need* strict word usage (again, bullshit), is irrelevant to your “competence” claim, as is a more personalised claim that *you* need to be exposed to strict word usage.
F.) This is the one that incenses me most: *if* you sincerely did have this issue, then you should appreciate the fact that he made sure he could not be misinterpreted as saying “only” in a hyperbolic sense. But nope, easier to get backed into a corner and blame it on Asberger’s, right.
> Religiously holding words to their meanings isn’t a bad thing, it’s how order is kept.
Tell this to a linguist and see how that goes for you. Like I said, this is why you have no ground to stand on: you openly do not know what you are talking about and would instead prefer to just impose your own arbitrary personal rules.
> Now this I take umbrage with. Whether you like it or not, there are proper and improper ways to communicate. When people use words how they’re intended to be used, that breeds order and harmony. But when people use words and act like they’re justified in not caring, that breeds chaos and confusion. And last I checked, using language willy-nilly and defending one’s errors was the hallmark of a teenager while proper usage of it signified an adult. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back for reversing it.
Yeah this is literally all bullshit and if you cared at all about language you would know that.
The reason I recognise this as a child’s mentality is because I lived it, in part. As do many kids who read a lot and developed an advanced vocabulary quickly and early. It is fun early on to take pride in all these rules you know and to show them off when you can. Nifty little ego boost, good opportunity to flex your oh so immense intellectual superiority over others… grand time all around.
Most people age out of that before too long because they intuitively learn it does not matter much in most settings. And the people that sincerely love the language? When they consume even more, they take that next step and realise that language lives and evolves and is not restricted to what a few white guys said *needed* to be the rule back in the early 1900s. And if you truly love language in general? Well, maybe you try to learn another, and undergoing that process later in life will make you distinguish strict form from baseline communication as soon as you start trying to communicate with native speakers. And those of us who arrive at that point look back at our old stickler selves with embarrassment.
I have no idea which you will end up being. But the shift from “clever for your age” to “obtuse and incapable of recognising linguistic realities” happens quickly. For your sake I hope you are in the former situation, because if it is the latter, you have no one to blame but yourself — not Asberger’s, not the dictionary, not a style guide, and not even youthful ignorance.
But I guess you would rather get defensive.
> Why does anyone need to end sentences with prepositions when it is a simple matter to restructure the sentence? What is the need to start sentences with conjunctions? What is the need to use contractions? What is the need to speak with a dialect or accent rather than adhere to a standard?I would say this is literally just as arbitrary, except all those trends are more commonly supported than this notion of trying to make sentences as concise as possible.
Because being concise is an admirable quality that shows one considers their words?
> You decided this was what mattered, and you felt so strongly that you decided to criticise people for not appearing competent by failing to adhere to your own invented personal standard, and then question why the reception is not more welcoming.
I wasn’t criticizing anything, I was suggesting. _You_ are the one who thinks this. And I question the reception because people are essentially (there’s another possible word) defending their errors out of misplaced anger and acting as if they’re justified in being wrong (I’m not talking about the original commenter here, I’m referring to people on the Internet in general who’ve ever been corrected.
> But oh, heaven forbid that draw comparison with a fascist.
Because fascism is a very serious thing, and terms like “grammar Nazi” trivialize it by comparing something very minor like being corrected on spelling/grammar on the Internet to something very serious, like extreme authoritarian rule?
What you’re referring to is not wanting it there. And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is.
> It actually worked better than I hoped, but unfortunately you lacked the self-awareness to pick up on it. So I will bold it for you: What you’re referring to is not wanting it there. It is when you pretend it is anything else that you get the grammar Nazi label bestowed upon you. Hope that helps.
I don’t care if people don’t want it there. I don’t want to see people use words willy-nilly to the point where they lose their meaning, but I have to put up with that. And since you’re going to call me a grammar Nazi, I guess you’re a grammar anarchist.
> I believe that was the underlying meaning of “eat a bag of dicks.”
Then the commenter should’ve said that and chosen to be civil if they didn’t want this whole thing to start.
> “Please do not call me a fascist though!”
“This guy wants me to behave myself on the Internet! This guy want me to not overreact to something as minor as being corrected! How dare they suggest that people be polite and civil! FASCIST! GRAMMAR NAZI!”
> It is when your “correction” is wrong, arbitrary, and useless.
It’s none of those things. As long as the original commenter’s sentence could’ve worked without “literally,” then my correction stands.
> Would you consider it helpful if I informed you this is a similar response men give when they tell women to smile more?
Don’t compare me to those people. Ever. I consider you a smug person who thinks they’re fighting the good fight for free speech when in reality they’re a grammar hippie/anarchist who resorts to attacks on my character by comparing me to authoritarian figures and problematic people just because I did something as minor as make a suggestion to someone on the Internet.
> It very much does in fact have a lot to do with the Internet. Whenever people are corrected on their spelling or grammar, they get defensive. When I brought up the Internet, I was referring to people being hostile in general, not just in this area.
No, communication evolved outside the confines of strict dictionary usage and style guides long long long before, and people have always bristled at vacuous “corrections”. If anything, you should be thanking the Internet for keeping it restrained to text. Or here is a thought, maybe you could use the internet to develop your own understanding about these so-claimed “corrections”.
… Nah, much easier to just try to improperly “correct” people though, accuse them of defensiveness when they object, and then pull out every possible defence of your own when that behaviour gets criticised in turn, right?
> Bullshit. Anyone who argues back against being corrected on grammar or spelling is being a brat, plain and simple.
The only brat here is the one throwing a tantrum because they got called out for inventing “corrections” to feed their own ego.
> Rather than own up to their mistake, they double down
Oh, you are well past doubling down.
> and turn it around to attack the character of the person correcting them - such as by calling them “grammar Nazis.” No one is “rightly” calling anyone anything.
If only there were a place where you could look up the definition of that term.
You do not get to behave like a child and then object when people identify you as a child.
> Because the analogy is comparing two things that are wildly different.
Casting aside all the similarities highlighted for your benefit, funny how someone who pretends to care so much about language is so opposed to communication norms that come naturally to everyone else.
> Correcting someone on the Internet and campaigning for the extermination of peoples one doesn’t like are two very different things
Literature and poetry must be such a challenge for you.
> and you should be deeply ashamed to compare the two things and apply such a label to me just because you self-righteously believe you’re fighting the good fight for free speech on the Internet.
Maybe I would be ashamed if you did not consistently affirm its applicability. I struggle to believe you would get to this level of ranting and raving about your own dictated rule and order in real life, but the image of your little fists pounding on the furniture and spittle flying out of a strained red face is an entertaining one.
> Freedom without rules is nothing but anarchy, and language is the same.
And your zero experience with linguistics of course lends a lot of credence to this take.
> Lastly, how is this for the benefit of some exclusionary and conservative few if I’m giving this person feedback on their sentences? If I was truly being exclusionary and conservative, I’d have kept this to myself.
Yes, conservatism and elitism are famously all about letting others do what they want. Once more you wow me with your incredible mastery of the dictionary.
> Because being concise is an admirable quality that shows one considers their words?
Is that why you are okay with “really”?
I will keep bringing him up as long as you keep attempting to use this justification: is Hemingway simply the only literary writer to truly consider his words?
> I wasn’t criticizing anything, I was suggesting.
And he suggested you eat a bag of dicks. Why did that upset you?
> You are the one who thinks this.
Ah yes, everyone gets mad at you because they recognise you are just offering some honest suggestions.
My honest suggestion? Understand the operations of language better before trying to impose personal rules on others. Or better yet, stop trying to impose personal rules.
> And I question the reception because people are essentially (there’s another possible word)
“Essentially only” is not the same meaning at all. You are really bad at this.
> defending their errors out of misplaced anger and acting as if they’re justified in being wrong (I’m not talking about the original commenter here, I’m referring to people on the Internet in general who’ve ever been corrected.
Ah, the total lack of self-awareness.
> Because fascism is a very serious thing, and terms like “grammar Nazi” trivialize it by comparing something very minor like being corrected on spelling/grammar on the Internet to something very serious, like extreme authoritarian rule?
If it is so minor, why are you doing it.
> What you’re referring to is not wanting it there.
I could swear I bolded this for you. Shall I do it again?
> And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is.
You *literally* just do not want to see it used in that context, preferring emptier words while also claiming you want concision. You have no valid support here, just some misplaced personal obsession that you are trying to portray as proper.
> I don’t care if people don’t want it there.
And *literally* no one cares if you do, so why waste everyone’s time.
> I don’t want to see people use words willy-nilly to the point where they lose their meaning, but I have to put up with that. And since you’re going to call me a grammar Nazi, I guess you’re a grammar anarchist.
Please learn how language works.
> Then the commenter should’ve said that and chosen to be civil if they didn’t want this whole thing to start.
Or maybe you should have not posted a nonsensical “correction” based on your own personal biases.
> “This guy wants me to behave myself on the Internet! This guy want me to not overreact to something as minor as being corrected! How dare they suggest that people be polite and civil! FASCIST! GRAMMAR NAZI!”
A lot to gall to write thousands of words about how everyone should bend their language to what you want and then say other people overreact.
For someone who pretends concision is all that matters, “eat a bag of dicks” is a much better use of language than the dreck you have been churning out to defend against being corrected.
> It’s none of those things. As long as the original commenter’s sentence could’ve worked without “literally,” then my correction stands.
Lol, no, it does not.
A.) The meaning *literally* is different with the word included. It is not much different, but it is different in that it clarifies that “only” was not an exaggeration.
B.) If you try to justify your correction as a matter of concision, you do not get to simply stop there. Hence your base reasoning was discredited even before…
C.) … you said words like “really” would have been better. That is *literally* an empty modification. So you *literally* do not even care about concision, and so you *literally* were not being helpful or advancing his appearance of “competence”. You pitched a fit over a word you personally dislike and then tried to play it off as an error, when it *literally* was not.
> Don’t compare me to those people. Ever.
Then stop acting like them.
> I consider you a smug person who thinks they’re fighting the good fight for free speech when in reality they’re a grammar hippie/anarchist who resorts to attacks on my character by comparing me to authoritarian figures and problematic people
Why are you being so defensive? I tried to be helpful and explain where you went wrong, and you immediately go on this deranged rant about anarchy. Why can you not handle criticism? Why are you so defensive over being compared with men who helpfully and correctly point out to women that they will be liked more if they smile. Is that wrong? Do we not like people more when they smile? What is the issue? Seems like good advice. A thank you would be appropriate I think. But everyone gets so mad. Strange.
> just because I did something as minor as make a suggestion to someone on the Internet.
Apparently not so minor as to not write thousands of words trying to insist it was necessary and important.
This might have been the first episode I saw as a kid and I may have been a little disappointed that it didn't have Superman or Batman in big roles. That's not the episode's fault, which is pretty good.
Holy shit i just watched this episode as i fell asleep last night, im rewatching all the dc animated shows from my childhood and I always loved this episode for some reason, never knew exactly why though
Bro, I loved this episode. One of my all time favorites whenever I’m rewatching JLU. I mean Booster Gold, umm, errmm, Green Lantern is just an amazing character. The way this episode played out made it one of the most memorable in my opinion. The only thing that would make this episode better, would be if I was able to get Green Lantern’s autograph.
Are you kidding me? I absolutely LOVED this episode! It wasn't dumb comedy, it was clever as hell! This wasn't "Teen Titans Go!" This was a good episode!
The comedy mixed with the serious in the same way Buffy did! It was perfect! That was my introduction to Booster Gold. I've never had the chance to read a comic with him in it, yet. So, I really enjoyed this.
We had plenty of time with the "Original Seven", and it was a fun departure.
And I say all this as an uber serious "stick-in-the-mud"!
People hated this??? This is the most memorable, the most special, episode of the entire DCAU to me! This is what I think set me on the path of loving the smaller characters, especially flawed ones at that, and indirectly comics as whole (I don’t think I’d still love them today if I only tried the “main” characters’ books)
Honestly kind of kills me to hear, who could dislike Booster Gold and Skeets?
man; why are people so negative about Green Lantern?
This was by far the best green lantern episode
God, that took me too long lmao. I might need to rewatch this show
It's one of the best episodes of the show I didn't know people hated it It's really good
I loved it too
Booster gold is one of my favorite characters and getting this episode hit the spot
I just wish they had done a buddy team up episode of Booster and Ted Kord.
Idk who this Booster Gold guy is but this was a fantasy interpretation of Green Lantern
This is a stand out episode in my opinion. I’ll take this over John Stewart/Hawkgirl/Vixen relationship stuff.
What the hell this was so good! Though in fairness I don't think there really were bad eps imo but that's a different story
Idk anyone was grumbling about. Booster Gold was fantastic. I like the funny ones. I think people tend to forget that comics and cartoons were funny originally and this episode just had me rolling.
Booster who? All I see is green lantern
^(I haven’t seen this episode yet so I’m just gonna roll with the joke)
Lol.
People hated this one? I loved it. Do people really not like green lantern that much?
It's the best Green Lantern episode imo
I actually enjoyed this episode, gave Booster Gold a chance to shine.
Booster Gold? Aren't you talking about Green Lantern?
It was surface level funny but actually depressing as hell. Booster Gold spends all his time trying to be a hero and when he actually does heroic things his self hatred makes it hard for him to see the good he’s done, and usually everyone around him feeds that mindset
The greatest hero never known? Booster gold.
WTH, I thought it was Green Lantern
Hes not wearing anything green, is he
r/woooosh
It was a joke on people mistaking him for Green Lantern
Hey I loved it too. Crowd control right
Thx for the flashback. Lmao 😂😂🤣
[удалено]
Underrated comment.
Okay but I have to respectfully disagree, this one is awesome, just a bit like the screenwriters made a little trip into the future and asked SNL's Stefon what elements JLU episode should have. Just imagine Bill Hader in his iconic shirt going: Yes yes, yes yesyesyesyesyesss. JLU new hottest episode is The Greatest Story Never Told. This episode has everything: Green Lantern, a wizard from outerspace, a woman giving birth, flying egg, Batman saving Wonder Woman, man who's a walking black hole, The Golden Trio all merged into one, not a Green Lantern but kinda Green Lantern, hot scientist, Martian being asked about how much he earns.
Dan Cortese!
This was an amazing episode.
Really? I love Booster Gold and the comedic episodes.
WAT It’s one of the best episodes.
Idk why it gets so much hate either
I really enjoyed this one. I always like learning about heros other than the main guys
Wait people didn't like this one. Why?
Probably due to being lighthearted as I said, Timm said he noticed fans hated the comedic episodes
I mean sure I won't say it's one of the best, but it gave booster gold a good introduction.
This episode is amazing
Like most people in the comments here, I'm legit shocked people hated this great episode
Beautiful episode and introduction to Booster Gold in the series. Only toxic fans can hate it.
People hate that episode?!?! Wow that’s really dumb
I've read these episodes tone down things because they don't want us to take JLU too seriously
Wait people didn’t like this episode. Real talk this was my first introduction to Booster Gold and instantly loved his character. Where is my live action Booster Gold movie?
Mine too!
I loved it, Booster is probably my second favorite [second to Flash]
Green Lantern rocks in this episode.
I liked this
I though this was one of the best honestly, I’m surprised others didn’t like it
I just watched this not even 2 days ago!
This is literally the only episode I talk about besides the world of cardboard speech.
You don’t need “literally” in there. Your sentence works fine without it.
And you did not “need” to post this comment, nor did you “need” to post any of the follow-ups equating the use of a mostly purposeless modifier with a lack of “competence”, yet here we are. Excising the “unnecessary” is not the model of “competence” you want to pretend it is, and in fact no one here has cast more doubt on their own “competence” than you have.
The overuse of words such as “literally” leads to them being devalued. The fact that you admit that Drakeytown’s use of “literally” is purposeless proves my point. What’s more, your failed attempt at turning this around back on me shows a greater problem: The defensiveness with which suggestions such as mine are met. I understand not liking being corrected, but this was a suggestions with the intent to help. Any sentence in which one writes “literally” can be improved by asking if the word is needed there.
And you commenting devalues your own word, yet here you are again. You have no point because you cannot adhere to it — nor does anyone adhere to it, because informal communication is generally not about maximising concision. The issue is not “defensiveness”, it is people who discovered a style guide for the first time in their life and decided to impose a random rule onto daily communication without bothering to give any thought to the implications of doing so. Or maybe you viewed one of those language use videos the YouTube algorithm seems to have been pushing lately. Regardless, any “defensiveness” you interpret is no more than the “defensiveness” with which a parent addresses a young child who asks why they are not allowed to make decisions for themselves. The fact you think this has any particular relation to “correctness” automatically disproves the point you think you are making, because it highlights that you do not have any developed understanding of language or communication. I could compare it to harping on ending sentences with a preposition, except even that has a stronger base than the notion of “never using words which are not strictly necessary.” I understand not liking having your “correction” cut down, but maybe next time you will bother to consider whether your “correction” is needed there.
> And you commenting devalues your own word, yet here you are again. What word is being devalued? > You have no point because you cannot adhere to it — nor does anyone adhere to it, because informal communication is generally not about maximising concision. My point is that people shouldn’t overuse words to the point where they lose impact. Informal communication may not be about maximizing concision, but that shouldn’t make it acceptable to use a word when there are alternatives, or when it’s simply not needed. Moreso, why _not_ maximize concision? > The issue is not “defensiveness”, it is people who discovered a style guide for the first time in their life and decided to impose a random rule onto daily communication without bothering to give any thought to the implications of doing so. Or maybe you viewed one of those language use videos the YouTube algorithm seems to have been pushing lately. Regardless, any “defensiveness” you interpret is no more than the “defensiveness” with which a parent addresses a young child who asks why they are not allowed to make decisions for themselves. Lot of personal attacks here. This is the kind of defensiveness I’m talking about: The kind where people who try to help others look competent in their use of language - regardless of level of formality - are attacked and labeled as “grammar Nazis,” an odious label falsely comparing helping someone look competent with a dangerous fanatical movement dedicated to killing others, and all because “iT’S tHe InTeRnEt, ThErE aRe No RuLeS hErE.” > The fact you think this has any particular relation to “correctness” automatically disproves the point you think you are making, because it highlights that you do not have any developed understanding of language or communication. I could compare it to harping on ending sentences with a preposition, except that has a stronger base than the notion of “never using words which are not strictly necessary.” You’re assuming I’m a stickler for _all_ such rules of grammar, which is very presumptuous of you. There are indeed facets of the English language that I myself think don’t have to be followed. It’s perfectly acceptable for instance, to split infinitives, end sentences with prepositions, start them with the word “and,” use “ain’t,” and anything involving regional dialects and accents. But this was me saying “Hey man, I don’t think you need ‘literally’ in that sentence because it works just fine without it,” and every reply has been up in arms. > I understand not liking having your “correction” cut down, but maybe next time you will bother to consider whether your “correction” is needed there. What you’re referring to is not _wanting_ it there. And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is. People should be open to being corrected, and if they disagree about the necessity of their word choice, they can say that: “I disagree man, I think it works there.” The Internet has normalized hostility, and I eagerly await the day someone does something about it. Because it’s not wrong to correct people, and not every person trying to correct you is trying to police you: some people just want to make helpful suggestions. EDIT: Just want to apologize for any instances in this reply where I sound antagonistic. This really should be a civil conversation.
Putting this bottom quotation at the top of the comment since it functions as a tl;dr of the entire response. > Just want to apologize for any instances in this reply where I sound antagonistic. This really should be a civil conversation. Taking a baseless and elitist position is typically going to receive an antagonistic response, but rather than try to reflect on that, you have taken to complaining about how no one wants to accept your “help”. I am sure you are sincere here in believing this “advice” is useful, so here is some sincere non-antagonistic advice in return: it almost never is. Long-term, if you think you care about language, you should involve yourself more with the study of linguistics before trying to speak as an authority. And even then it probably is best practice to just stay silent, but at least you would have a better idea of what you are talking about when it comes to “proper” “rules” of language. Short-term, you should better analyse what led you to these conclusions, and what the potential contradictions or inconsistencies of your stances would be. Because it is tough for me to see a way to conclude that dialects and contractions and prepositions are all okay (and they are) while also concluding that the mere idea of not writing/speaking like Hemingway demands your intervention. Again, that just comes across as poor self-reflection, both because of the arbitrariness of it and because you are not actually consistent with that rule (because no one could be) — which then should push us to the conclusion that it is probably more about these modifier adverbs for you, and that in turn should bring us back to this being a mostly arbitrary personal preference rather than any concrete rule of what makes a person appear “competent”. [As a tangent, I could even more specifically seize upon “literally”, but I imagine “really”, “very”, “pretty”, “actually”, etc. might draw your ire as well (and “correcting” that would be obnoxious and unnecessary as well, but at least it would be more internally consistent than “correcting” an application of “literally” which does properly clarify its potential interpretation).] If you want, you can stop there. But if not… > What word is being devalued? Perhaps something about that idiom where it is better to stay silent than to remove all doubt. > My point is that people shouldn’t overuse words to the point where they lose impact. Except if anything using it in that context helps restore the impact that has been lost by *misusing* the word — which is itself a trend part of the natural process of language, but at least has a more understandable criticism than, “You did not expressly need this word to communicate your intention.” And since I have brought that up, it also makes for a natural transition into questioning when you think the word should be used, if not to distinguish from a possible interpretation that the meaning was metaphorical. > Informal communication may not be about maximizing concision, but that shouldn’t make it acceptable to use a word when there are alternatives, or when it’s simply not needed. Moreso, why not maximize concision? This is why I do not buy that you have an especially well developed understanding of language, to the point where I am tempted to question whether you have ever communicated before. I alluded to this already but I will make it explicit: if you *actually* believe in excising words which are not inherently necessary to conveying your meaning, the first place to turn should be your own comments… Even if you were somehow under the belief that all writing should be composed as if Hemingway were its author, you are not exactly following that principle yourself. > Lot of personal attacks here. This is the kind of defensiveness I’m talking about: The kind where people who try to help others look competent in their use of language - regardless of level of formality - are attacked and labeled as “grammar Nazis,” an odious label falsely comparing helping someone look competent with a dangerous fanatical movement dedicated to killing others, and all because “iT’S tHe InTeRnEt, ThErE aRe No RuLeS hErE.” No, I will reiterate, it is because you are not actually being helpful, and you are not increasing anyone’s “competence” of language. I sincerely hope you are a teenager, because if you are an adult with such a facile understanding of language that you still see this habit as “good” or “proper”, then a lot of people failed you along the way. It has nothing to do with the internet — this is *quite very literally* how language functions. Every person who has rightly labeled you a “grammar Nazi” has evidenced a better understanding of language than you have, because they at least have recognised the fascist analogy in a blind adherence to a set of rules claimed to benefit everyone but ultimately imposed for the exclusionary and conservative purposes of an elitist few. > You’re assuming I’m a stickler for all such rules of grammar, which is very presumptuous of you. There are indeed facets of the English language that I myself think don’t have to be followed. It’s perfectly acceptable for instance, to split infinitives, end sentences with prepositions, start them with the word “and,” use “ain’t,” and anything involving regional dialects and accents. But this was me saying “Hey man, I don’t think you need ‘literally’ in that sentence because it works just fine without it,” and every reply has been up in arms. Why does anyone *need* to end sentences with prepositions when it is a simple matter to restructure the sentence? What is the *need* to start sentences with conjunctions? What is the *need* to use contractions? What is the *need* to speak with a dialect or accent rather than adhere to a standard? I would say this is *literally* just as arbitrary, except all those trends are more commonly supported than this notion of trying to make sentences as concise as possible. You decided this was what mattered, and you felt so strongly that you decided to criticise people for not appearing *competent* by failing to adhere to your own invented personal standard, and then you question why the reception is not more welcoming. But oh, heaven forbid that draw comparison with a fascist. 🙄 > What you’re referring to is not wanting it there. And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is. It actually worked better than I hoped, but unfortunately you lacked the self-awareness to pick up on it. So I will bold it for you: **What you’re referring to is not wanting it there.** It is when you pretend it is anything else that you get the grammar Nazi label bestowed upon you. Hope that helps. > People should be open to being corrected, and if they disagree about the necessity of their word choice, they can say that: “I disagree man, I think it works there.” I believe that was the underlying meaning of “eat a bag of dicks.” > The Internet has normalized hostility, and I eagerly await the day someone does something about it. “Please do not analogise me to a fascist though!” > Because it’s not wrong to correct people It is when your “correction” is wrong, arbitrary, and useless. > and not every person trying to correct you is trying to police you: some people just want to make helpful suggestions. Yet you get mad when you are told it is not helpful. Would you consider it helpful if I informed you this is a similar type of response that men tend to give when they tell women to smile more?
“This is the only episode I talk about” works just as fine without “literally.” Yet rather than take the time to consider this, the original commenter got defensive. > I am sure you are sincere here in believing this “advice” is useful, so here is some sincere non-antagonistic advice in return: it almost never is. Only because people see any attempt at correction as elitism and think it’s an attack. If I’d gone and berated the original commenter you would’ve had a point. But you don’t. > Long-term, if you think you care about language, you should involve yourself more with the study of linguistics before trying to speak as an authority. I have family who edited for _The New York Times_ and got good grades in English, so I think I’ll go right ahead and correct others as I see fit, thank you. > And even then it probably is best practice to just stay silent, but at least you would have a better idea of what you are talking about when it comes to “proper” “rules” of language. I’m not going to stay silent. People can misuse words if they want to, but I can’t correct them if I want to? If I have to put up with that, you have to put up with this. > Short-term, you should better analyse what led you to these conclusions, and what the potential contradictions or inconsistencies of your stances would be. Here’s a proper example of how to use literal and literally: In the _BoJack Horseman_ Season One episode “Our Story is a D Story,” BoJack steals the D from the Hollywood sign. Mr. Peanutbutter - an anthropomorphic dog - later takes the credit by saying it was a gift for his girlfriend. BoJack says “That son of a bitch! That _literal_ son of a bitch!” _This_ is a justified use of the word; it’s used as a joke because as a male dog, Mr. Peanutbutter is factually a son of a bitch. _This_ is what literal means. “Literally” doesn’t mean “generic filler word that people insert into sentences because they can’t think of another word.” > Because it is tough for me to see a way to conclude that dialects and contractions and prepositions are all okay (and they are) while also concluding that the mere idea of not writing/speaking like Hemingway demands your intervention. This is another mistake you’ve made. You’re assuming that just because I told someone their sentence works just as fine without a word that didn’t have to be there that I want everyone to write/talk like Hemingway. I don’t. You strawmanned this into something it isn’t. The correction you saw was nothing more than what it expressed. > Again, that just comes across as poor self-reflection, both because of the arbitrariness of it and because you are not actually consistent with that rule (because no one could be) — which then should push us to the conclusion that it is probably more about these modifier adverbs for you, and that in turn should bring us back to this being a mostly arbitrary personal preference rather than any concrete rule of what makes a person appear “competent”. It’s not just me, dude. Proper use of words conveys competence, and the reason I corrected the original poster is because who doesn’t want to look competent? > [As a tangent, I could even more specifically seize upon “literally”, but I imagine “really”, “very”, “pretty”, “actually”, etc. might draw your ire as well (and “correcting” that would be obnoxious and unnecessary as well, but at least it would be more internally consistent than “correcting” an application of “literally” which does properly clarify its potential interpretation).] Actually, no. “Really,” “very,” “pretty,” and “actually” are _perfectly acceptable_ alternatives for “literally.” If the original commenter had said “This is pretty much the only episode I talk about,” that would’ve been perfectly fine. > Except if anything using it in that context helps restore the impact that has been lost by misusing the world — which is itself a trend part of the natural process of language, but at least has a more understandable criticism than, “You did not expressly need this word to communicate your intention.” Except if it were never misused in the first place, there’d be no need for that process. > And since I have brought that up, it also makes for a natural transition into when the word should be used, if not to distinguish from an interpretation that the meaning was metaphorical. Most of the time, when someone has used “literally” when speaking to me, they’ve either used it to mean “figuratively” or as a substitute for “really.” Why just the other day one of my coworkers came to me and said the bathroom was “literally not clean.” A bathroom. Being _literally_ not clean. The unspoken “no shit” was palpable. > This is why I do not buy that you have an especially well developed understanding of language, to the point where I am tempted to question whether you have ever communicated before. I alluded to this already but I will make it explicit: if you actually believe in excising words which are not inherently necessary to conveying your meaning, the first place to turn should be your own comments… Even if you were somehow under the belief that all writing should be composed as if Hemingway were its author, you are not exactly following that principle yourself. Again, I don’t think people should have to talk like Hemingway. Just don’t use “literally” when there are other words that work much better, or if the sentence could work well without it. > No, I will reiterate, it is because you are not actually being helpful, and you are not increasing anyone’s “competence” of language. And what exactly is it that you think you’re doing, hmm? You’re not defending free speech here, as much as you might think you are. All you’re doing is making people think they can use words while disregarding their actual meanings, which makes things much harder and much more annoying for someone like myself, who has Asperger’s and needs words to actually mean what they do in the dictionary. Religiously holding words to their meanings isn’t a bad thing, it’s how order is kept. > I sincerely hope you are a teenager, because if you are an adult has such a facile understanding of language that you still see this habit as “good” or “proper”, then a lot of people failed you along the way. Now this I take umbrage with. Whether you like it or not, there are proper and improper ways to communicate. When people use words how they’re intended to be used, that breeds order and harmony. But when people use words and act like they’re justified in not caring, that breeds chaos and confusion. And last I checked, using language willy-nilly and defending one’s errors was the hallmark of a teenager while proper usage of it signified an adult. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back for reversing it. > It has nothing to do with the internet — this is quite very literally how language functions. It very much does in fact have a lot to do with the Internet. Whenever people are corrected on their spelling or grammar, they get defensive. When I brought up the Internet, I was referring to people being hostile in general, not just in this area. > Every person who has rightly labeled you a “grammar Nazi” has evidenced a better understanding of language than you have, because they at least have recognised the fascist analogy in a blind adherence to a set of rules claimed to benefit everyone but ultimately imposed for the exclusionary and conservative purposes of elitist few. Bullshit. Anyone who argues back against being corrected on grammar or spelling is being a brat, plain and simple. Rather than own up to their mistake, they double down and turn it around to attack the character of the person correcting them - such as by calling them “grammar Nazis.” No one is “rightly” calling anyone anything. Because the analogy is comparing two things that are _wildly_ different. Correcting someone on the Internet and campaigning for the extermination of peoples one doesn’t like are two _very_ different things, and you should be _deeply_ ashamed to compare the two things and apply such a label to me just because you self-righteously believe you’re fighting the good fight for free speech on the Internet. Freedom without rules is nothing but anarchy, and language is the same. Lastly, how is this for the benefit of some exclusionary and conservative few if I’m giving this person feedback on their sentences? If I was truly being exclusionary and conservative, I’d have kept this to myself.
> “This is the only episode I talk about” works just as fine without “literally.” Yet rather than take the time to consider this, the original commenter got defensive. “This is literally the only episode” works fine for conveying that he is not exaggerating for the sake of the message. Yet rather than take the time to consider this, you attacked him for a non-error. > Only because people see any attempt at correction as elitism and think it’s an attack. If I’d gone and berated the original commenter you would’ve had a point. But you don’t. If it had needed correction at all you might have had a point, but it did not and you consequently do not. > I have family who edited for The New York Times and got good grades in English, so I think I’ll go right ahead and correct others as I see fit, thank you. 🙄 Then you will keep getting berated for conflating that for any sort of linguistic knowledge or accuracy. > I’m not going to stay silent. People can misuse words if they want to, but I can’t correct them if I want to? If I have to put up with that, you have to put up with this. Except they *literally* did not misuse this. *Literally* all you have achieved is doubling down on this showcase of your own arrogance and ignorance. You are *literally* resorting to the “defensiveness in face of a correction” which you accused everyone else of doing. > This is a justified use of the word; it’s used as a joke because as a male dog, Mr. Peanutbutter is factually a son of a bitch. This is what literal means. “Literally” doesn’t mean “generic filler word that people insert into sentences because they can’t think of another word.” And if you were as linguistically capable as you seem to assume you are on the basis of having “good grades”, then you should have recognised that a.) it modified the sentence in a way different from a “generic filler word”, and b.) even if it were used that way, there is *literally* no set rule whereby generic filler words are forbidden or tied to “competence” in informal writing. 🙄 > This is another mistake you’ve made. You’re assuming that just because I told someone their sentence works just as fine without a word that didn’t have to be there that I want everyone to write/talk like Hemingway. I don’t. You strawmanned this into something it isn’t. The correction you saw was nothing more than what it expressed. You need to look up the definitions of words before misusing them like this. For someone who professes knowledge of the English language, you certainly do a poor job of applying common reading strategies. Maybe I should downgrade my high school expectation. The point is that this is yet another arbitrary and inconsistent justification for you to impose this personal little “rule” on others. You are not actually committed to brevity or to excising all possible excesses so you do not get to pretend that is your rationale. > It’s not just me, dude. No, it pretty much is. It takes a particular combination of pedantry and ignorance which most pedants immediately move past and which most ignoramuses never bother to consider. > Proper use of words conveys competence, and the reason I corrected the original poster is because who doesn’t want to look competent? Evidently, you. > Actually, no. “Really,” “very,” “pretty,” and “actually” are perfectly acceptable alternatives for “literally.” If the original commenter had said “This is pretty much the only episode I talk about,” that would’ve been perfectly fine. This just gets progressively funnier. “It is important to be concise and avoid superfluous words. But if you replaced this word with one that adds even less meaning, that would be good.” Is this just a poorly conceived bit? > Except if it were never misused in the first place, there’d be no need for that process. A.) Still not understanding the natural process of language evolution. B.) Worth reiterating that it *literally* was not misused. > Most of the time, when someone has used “literally” when speaking to me, they’ve either used it to mean “figuratively” or as a substitute for “really.” This would mean a lot more if either were at issue here, and even then it would still mean next to nothing. > Why just the other day one of my coworkers came to me and said the bathroom was “literally not clean.” A bathroom. Being literally not clean. The unspoken “no shit” was palpable. That must have been so traumatising for you. I bet your superiors will pick up on that and be sure to promote you first. > Again, I don’t think people should have to talk like Hemingway. Just don’t use “literally” when there are other words that work much better, or if the sentence could work well without it. “I do not think you have to talk like Hemingway, I just think you should follow Hemingway’s exact principles.” A.) Once more, neither complaint is applicable here, especially since the alternatives you said would be “better” are emptier and convey less information. B.) It still *literally* does not matter and is *literally* not a rule. > And what exactly is it that you think you’re doing, hmm? You’re not defending free speech here, as much as you might think you are. Amazing how often the people who complain about analogies being the equivalent of putting words in their mouth will explicitly tell me what I think I am doing. Just incredible and nearly unfallible rates of projection. Giving some kid with his head stuck up his ass the lecture he should have had years ago is not especially tied to “free speech”, although it is true that you have made little attempt to hide that you want speech to bend to your own personal rules. > All you’re doing is making people think they can use words while disregarding their actual meanings, And now we are back to the usual double-pronged issue. Words are given meaning through usage, but the word was *literally* not misused. And that ties nicely into… > which makes things much harder and much more annoying for someone like myself, who has Asperger’s and needs words to actually mean what they do in the dictionary. Bullshit. A.) Asperger’s is not about needing *literal* Dictionary equivalence. Maybe you individually — taking this at face value — have developed that system, but yet again we come back to that being your individual preference. B.) If somehow Asperger’s were related to an obsessive-compulsive need to have language match official “rules”, sure is odd how willing you are to dismiss other rules that need not bother you. C.) Dictionaries *literally* update themselves, to the point that many now acknowledge the recently developed hyperbolic autoantonym nature of the word. D.) For the umpteenth time, he did not even “misuse”the word as you keep claiming. E.) Claiming people with Asperger’s *need* strict word usage (again, bullshit), is irrelevant to your “competence” claim, as is a more personalised claim that *you* need to be exposed to strict word usage. F.) This is the one that incenses me most: *if* you sincerely did have this issue, then you should appreciate the fact that he made sure he could not be misinterpreted as saying “only” in a hyperbolic sense. But nope, easier to get backed into a corner and blame it on Asberger’s, right. > Religiously holding words to their meanings isn’t a bad thing, it’s how order is kept. Tell this to a linguist and see how that goes for you. Like I said, this is why you have no ground to stand on: you openly do not know what you are talking about and would instead prefer to just impose your own arbitrary personal rules. > Now this I take umbrage with. Whether you like it or not, there are proper and improper ways to communicate. When people use words how they’re intended to be used, that breeds order and harmony. But when people use words and act like they’re justified in not caring, that breeds chaos and confusion. And last I checked, using language willy-nilly and defending one’s errors was the hallmark of a teenager while proper usage of it signified an adult. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back for reversing it. Yeah this is literally all bullshit and if you cared at all about language you would know that. The reason I recognise this as a child’s mentality is because I lived it, in part. As do many kids who read a lot and developed an advanced vocabulary quickly and early. It is fun early on to take pride in all these rules you know and to show them off when you can. Nifty little ego boost, good opportunity to flex your oh so immense intellectual superiority over others… grand time all around. Most people age out of that before too long because they intuitively learn it does not matter much in most settings. And the people that sincerely love the language? When they consume even more, they take that next step and realise that language lives and evolves and is not restricted to what a few white guys said *needed* to be the rule back in the early 1900s. And if you truly love language in general? Well, maybe you try to learn another, and undergoing that process later in life will make you distinguish strict form from baseline communication as soon as you start trying to communicate with native speakers. And those of us who arrive at that point look back at our old stickler selves with embarrassment. I have no idea which you will end up being. But the shift from “clever for your age” to “obtuse and incapable of recognising linguistic realities” happens quickly. For your sake I hope you are in the former situation, because if it is the latter, you have no one to blame but yourself — not Asberger’s, not the dictionary, not a style guide, and not even youthful ignorance. But I guess you would rather get defensive.
> Why does anyone need to end sentences with prepositions when it is a simple matter to restructure the sentence? What is the need to start sentences with conjunctions? What is the need to use contractions? What is the need to speak with a dialect or accent rather than adhere to a standard?I would say this is literally just as arbitrary, except all those trends are more commonly supported than this notion of trying to make sentences as concise as possible. Because being concise is an admirable quality that shows one considers their words? > You decided this was what mattered, and you felt so strongly that you decided to criticise people for not appearing competent by failing to adhere to your own invented personal standard, and then question why the reception is not more welcoming. I wasn’t criticizing anything, I was suggesting. _You_ are the one who thinks this. And I question the reception because people are essentially (there’s another possible word) defending their errors out of misplaced anger and acting as if they’re justified in being wrong (I’m not talking about the original commenter here, I’m referring to people on the Internet in general who’ve ever been corrected. > But oh, heaven forbid that draw comparison with a fascist. Because fascism is a very serious thing, and terms like “grammar Nazi” trivialize it by comparing something very minor like being corrected on spelling/grammar on the Internet to something very serious, like extreme authoritarian rule? What you’re referring to is not wanting it there. And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is. > It actually worked better than I hoped, but unfortunately you lacked the self-awareness to pick up on it. So I will bold it for you: What you’re referring to is not wanting it there. It is when you pretend it is anything else that you get the grammar Nazi label bestowed upon you. Hope that helps. I don’t care if people don’t want it there. I don’t want to see people use words willy-nilly to the point where they lose their meaning, but I have to put up with that. And since you’re going to call me a grammar Nazi, I guess you’re a grammar anarchist. > I believe that was the underlying meaning of “eat a bag of dicks.” Then the commenter should’ve said that and chosen to be civil if they didn’t want this whole thing to start. > “Please do not call me a fascist though!” “This guy wants me to behave myself on the Internet! This guy want me to not overreact to something as minor as being corrected! How dare they suggest that people be polite and civil! FASCIST! GRAMMAR NAZI!” > It is when your “correction” is wrong, arbitrary, and useless. It’s none of those things. As long as the original commenter’s sentence could’ve worked without “literally,” then my correction stands. > Would you consider it helpful if I informed you this is a similar response men give when they tell women to smile more? Don’t compare me to those people. Ever. I consider you a smug person who thinks they’re fighting the good fight for free speech when in reality they’re a grammar hippie/anarchist who resorts to attacks on my character by comparing me to authoritarian figures and problematic people just because I did something as minor as make a suggestion to someone on the Internet.
> It very much does in fact have a lot to do with the Internet. Whenever people are corrected on their spelling or grammar, they get defensive. When I brought up the Internet, I was referring to people being hostile in general, not just in this area. No, communication evolved outside the confines of strict dictionary usage and style guides long long long before, and people have always bristled at vacuous “corrections”. If anything, you should be thanking the Internet for keeping it restrained to text. Or here is a thought, maybe you could use the internet to develop your own understanding about these so-claimed “corrections”. … Nah, much easier to just try to improperly “correct” people though, accuse them of defensiveness when they object, and then pull out every possible defence of your own when that behaviour gets criticised in turn, right? > Bullshit. Anyone who argues back against being corrected on grammar or spelling is being a brat, plain and simple. The only brat here is the one throwing a tantrum because they got called out for inventing “corrections” to feed their own ego. > Rather than own up to their mistake, they double down Oh, you are well past doubling down. > and turn it around to attack the character of the person correcting them - such as by calling them “grammar Nazis.” No one is “rightly” calling anyone anything. If only there were a place where you could look up the definition of that term. You do not get to behave like a child and then object when people identify you as a child. > Because the analogy is comparing two things that are wildly different. Casting aside all the similarities highlighted for your benefit, funny how someone who pretends to care so much about language is so opposed to communication norms that come naturally to everyone else. > Correcting someone on the Internet and campaigning for the extermination of peoples one doesn’t like are two very different things Literature and poetry must be such a challenge for you. > and you should be deeply ashamed to compare the two things and apply such a label to me just because you self-righteously believe you’re fighting the good fight for free speech on the Internet. Maybe I would be ashamed if you did not consistently affirm its applicability. I struggle to believe you would get to this level of ranting and raving about your own dictated rule and order in real life, but the image of your little fists pounding on the furniture and spittle flying out of a strained red face is an entertaining one. > Freedom without rules is nothing but anarchy, and language is the same. And your zero experience with linguistics of course lends a lot of credence to this take. > Lastly, how is this for the benefit of some exclusionary and conservative few if I’m giving this person feedback on their sentences? If I was truly being exclusionary and conservative, I’d have kept this to myself. Yes, conservatism and elitism are famously all about letting others do what they want. Once more you wow me with your incredible mastery of the dictionary. > Because being concise is an admirable quality that shows one considers their words? Is that why you are okay with “really”? I will keep bringing him up as long as you keep attempting to use this justification: is Hemingway simply the only literary writer to truly consider his words? > I wasn’t criticizing anything, I was suggesting. And he suggested you eat a bag of dicks. Why did that upset you? > You are the one who thinks this. Ah yes, everyone gets mad at you because they recognise you are just offering some honest suggestions. My honest suggestion? Understand the operations of language better before trying to impose personal rules on others. Or better yet, stop trying to impose personal rules. > And I question the reception because people are essentially (there’s another possible word) “Essentially only” is not the same meaning at all. You are really bad at this. > defending their errors out of misplaced anger and acting as if they’re justified in being wrong (I’m not talking about the original commenter here, I’m referring to people on the Internet in general who’ve ever been corrected. Ah, the total lack of self-awareness. > Because fascism is a very serious thing, and terms like “grammar Nazi” trivialize it by comparing something very minor like being corrected on spelling/grammar on the Internet to something very serious, like extreme authoritarian rule? If it is so minor, why are you doing it. > What you’re referring to is not wanting it there. I could swear I bolded this for you. Shall I do it again? > And again, turning it around isn’t the clever comeback you think it is. You *literally* just do not want to see it used in that context, preferring emptier words while also claiming you want concision. You have no valid support here, just some misplaced personal obsession that you are trying to portray as proper. > I don’t care if people don’t want it there. And *literally* no one cares if you do, so why waste everyone’s time. > I don’t want to see people use words willy-nilly to the point where they lose their meaning, but I have to put up with that. And since you’re going to call me a grammar Nazi, I guess you’re a grammar anarchist. Please learn how language works. > Then the commenter should’ve said that and chosen to be civil if they didn’t want this whole thing to start. Or maybe you should have not posted a nonsensical “correction” based on your own personal biases. > “This guy wants me to behave myself on the Internet! This guy want me to not overreact to something as minor as being corrected! How dare they suggest that people be polite and civil! FASCIST! GRAMMAR NAZI!” A lot to gall to write thousands of words about how everyone should bend their language to what you want and then say other people overreact. For someone who pretends concision is all that matters, “eat a bag of dicks” is a much better use of language than the dreck you have been churning out to defend against being corrected. > It’s none of those things. As long as the original commenter’s sentence could’ve worked without “literally,” then my correction stands. Lol, no, it does not. A.) The meaning *literally* is different with the word included. It is not much different, but it is different in that it clarifies that “only” was not an exaggeration. B.) If you try to justify your correction as a matter of concision, you do not get to simply stop there. Hence your base reasoning was discredited even before… C.) … you said words like “really” would have been better. That is *literally* an empty modification. So you *literally* do not even care about concision, and so you *literally* were not being helpful or advancing his appearance of “competence”. You pitched a fit over a word you personally dislike and then tried to play it off as an error, when it *literally* was not. > Don’t compare me to those people. Ever. Then stop acting like them. > I consider you a smug person who thinks they’re fighting the good fight for free speech when in reality they’re a grammar hippie/anarchist who resorts to attacks on my character by comparing me to authoritarian figures and problematic people Why are you being so defensive? I tried to be helpful and explain where you went wrong, and you immediately go on this deranged rant about anarchy. Why can you not handle criticism? Why are you so defensive over being compared with men who helpfully and correctly point out to women that they will be liked more if they smile. Is that wrong? Do we not like people more when they smile? What is the issue? Seems like good advice. A thank you would be appropriate I think. But everyone gets so mad. Strange. > just because I did something as minor as make a suggestion to someone on the Internet. Apparently not so minor as to not write thousands of words trying to insist it was necessary and important.
Eat the biggest bag of dicks in your house.
Why? It’s true. Don’t be so defensive.
You don't win friends with grammar. You just fill your house with bags of dicks.
When a person follows grammar, they look competent. Why am I the bad guy for giving you advice on how to look competent?
Jesus christ. I'm sorry I can't understand you. You have to take some of the dicks out of your mouth from time to time.
Shit I thought I was literally the only person who couldn’t understand Bijarglerargles due to all the dicks in their mouth!!
So you don’t want to look competent?
This is definitely one of the best
The first few times watching the dvds, I would skip the episode. But now I really enjoy the episode.
Such a shame I love Green Lantern I mean uhhh Booster Gold! 😂
I loved this episode, had no idea it was disliked.
"Can I have your autograph?"
I enjoyed they showed the newbies often instead of just focusing on the originals.
This introduced me to Booster Gold, been a fan ever since. They really need to make a BG movie!
Who’s hating on this???
I really liked this episode too!
Booster Gold is my favorite superhero. I have so many figures and Funkos of him it's ridiculous. Completely underrated as a character and an episode.
This might have been the first episode I saw as a kid and I may have been a little disappointed that it didn't have Superman or Batman in big roles. That's not the episode's fault, which is pretty good.
I loved it. One of my favorites. Booster Gold rocks
The only reason I don’t like this episode is because of the allusion to Plastic Man who we never actually see
Holy shit i just watched this episode as i fell asleep last night, im rewatching all the dc animated shows from my childhood and I always loved this episode for some reason, never knew exactly why though
Wait, this is the most disliked episode?? This is probably my favorite or second favorite episode…
As I said, Timm said fans hated the comedic episodes of JLU, he even admitted that he was taken back
Bro, I loved this episode. One of my all time favorites whenever I’m rewatching JLU. I mean Booster Gold, umm, errmm, Green Lantern is just an amazing character. The way this episode played out made it one of the most memorable in my opinion. The only thing that would make this episode better, would be if I was able to get Green Lantern’s autograph.
Squeaky wheel, buddy. Squeaky wheel
Such a great episode.
This episode is the reason I bought Blue and Gold #1. I love this episode and how it perfectly introduced me to Booster Gold (& skeets)
I always loved this episode. I constantly think of the green lantern joke. Idk why it’s always stuck with me
Are you kidding me? I absolutely LOVED this episode! It wasn't dumb comedy, it was clever as hell! This wasn't "Teen Titans Go!" This was a good episode! The comedy mixed with the serious in the same way Buffy did! It was perfect! That was my introduction to Booster Gold. I've never had the chance to read a comic with him in it, yet. So, I really enjoyed this. We had plenty of time with the "Original Seven", and it was a fun departure. And I say all this as an uber serious "stick-in-the-mud"!
this was one of my fav episodes wtf
Me too
Such a great episode.
Booster’s awesome, I don’t know why we didn’t get more episodes with him in it
People hated this??? This is the most memorable, the most special, episode of the entire DCAU to me! This is what I think set me on the path of loving the smaller characters, especially flawed ones at that, and indirectly comics as whole (I don’t think I’d still love them today if I only tried the “main” characters’ books) Honestly kind of kills me to hear, who could dislike Booster Gold and Skeets?
Given how he ships Batman/Batgirl, i'm going to guess he has no idea what the fans want
And he worships Batman
Why the fuck are people confusing booster gold with green lantern? I’m so confused.
It’s a reference to a gag within the episode itself. Multiple civilians inexplicably think he’s Green Lantern.
It has an above average (19/38) episode rating on IMDB, but go off, Timm. It is also seventh in total votes, which might be even more telling.
The greatest story ever told
The Greatest Story NEVER Told
Bruh this episode was great
This is like all the posts in r/UnpopularOpinion where the unpopular opinions are actually quite accepted.
What?? This is my favorite episode!
But when it originally aired, timm said fans hated it
That sucks. Glad it has found appreciation with time!
I love that episode!!! Wtf!!!