okay maybe i’ll ask more directly for opinions on this: sometimes i write tweets stripped of nuance for rhetorical effect, like “X is Y” when my true opinion is closer to “in many cases X may be mostly Y”. i could see arguments that this is bad. thoughts?
Conversation
Replying to
partly this is a rebellion against rationalist speech norms where you have to caveat everything so much to avoid accusations of overconfidence that you end up not saying anything. and partly it is more fun. but perhaps i ought not contribute to loss of nuance in the discourse 🤔
6
45
there’s a specific way i want my writing to be received - as suggestions, hypotheses, thought-provoking shitposts, material for brainstorming - certainly not as any kind of “truth”. but admittedly this is not always clear from how i write, and maybe it’s unrealistic to expect
2
36
(also i’m still in like jail so just assume i’m liking your replies. i’m in some kind of strange variant where i can like once every few minutes or something)
3
22
thanks for the replies everyone. i think the main thing i want here is a certain quality of playfulness that i can aim for without needing to do any caveating (which feels anti-playful to me). like i can make everything sound more like a shitpost instead
1
5
same same, also to some degree this is us being conditioned by twitter. "X is Y" goes viral but "some Xs can in some cases be Ys except that one time i remember an X that was more like a Z which is an interesting nuance..." gets no engagement
3
9
Show replies
Replying to
Just don't caveat it and then when someone replies with an edge case just say, "yeah i agree"
everybody wins
4
Replying to
honestly? is mostly bad, imo
but *my* tendency of hedging doesn't originate from the rats
1
8
like ugh this really depends case-by-case and i for one am someone who exaggerates a lot by nature for example
but for the record i never pegged you for doing this, so keep doing whatever you're doing🤷♀️
1
3