Poll: Fontaine's Law

[M-E-D The Poet]

Hello Fellow Escapists.
Recently our writer monkeys have become very upset!
Whenever they would try to correct someone on the facts in an argument, they would suddenly get treated to a dishing out over their grammar!
Our writer monkeys started calling in sick from work because of the amount of stupid discussions they had to deal with.

Therefore our sophisticated tech lads have come up with something : Fontaine's Law.
This law states that whenever someone feels a little threatened on the Internet they will always revert to correcting other peoples grammar to show how smart and literate they are (Usually messing up in the process themselves).
This will then lead to endless debate on grammar and endless correcting of another's grammar.
We can therefore conclude by Fontaine's Law that the argument is now over.

So now we hope our writer monkeys have a lot less trouble with useless discussions.
We here at our corporation, value the wealth that grammar brings to our language and we will not be refraining from using it as correctly as we can.
We do however wish to put a stop to these endless discussions by this new law.

Cole : Ain't nothing but the grammar baby!

I don't know. I see more people arguing about semantics and going "you used X logical fallacy (that you really didn't use and/or I don't understand properly), therefore you lose the argument!" when it gets to that point. Seriously, there needs to be a logical fallacy about going "logical fallacy, I win!" and another one about "this word has a commonly accepted simple definition, but I'm going to argue about the connotation because I've got nothing else left to support my argument."

A consumer friendly idea by the consumer!
We've called our company lawyer in for this one.
Upon his entering we immediately proposed your idea.
Sadly our companies lawyer is a silent turtle.

However!

We've seen the value of the points made and hereby have agreed that
"The Connotation Of The Word" Arguments, can be added to this seeing as "Fontaine's Law" is posed over mistakes in literacy.

We also see reason in your second idea, there is only the issue that we in our company wished to specify, we like being specific.

 

[Colour Scientist]

That makes sense.

I think if you can understand what the other person is trying to say there's no need to nit-pick.

It gets kind of annoying when the error is obviously due to someone pressing the wrong key by mistake.

Person 1: I disagree with point X because of Y.
Person 2: i disagree with point Y because of Z.
Person 1: You didn't capitalise the "I", therefore you are obviously retarded and I'm not going to pay attention to anything else you argue.

I have to say though, you do get a kind of smug satisfaction when someone who tries to correct another person's post refers to themselves as a "grammer nazi".

 

[SlaveNumber23]

A similar phenomenon occurs in online gaming, where the verbally exhausted individual will resort to calling the other person a 'noob', believing it is the ultimate insult.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

And of course, once someone says "Grammar Nazi", Godwin's law has taken place and the previous argument gets replaced immediately.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

And of course, once someone says "Grammar Nazi", Godwin's law has taken place and the previous argument gets replaced immediately.

Or expanded.

1 silly + 1 silly = twice the folly I'd say.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Well, you asked for it . . .

Hello Fellow Escapists.
Recently our writer monkey's[footnote]should not have an apostrophe - should be "monkeys"[/footnote] have become very upset!
Whenever they would[footnote]the word "would" here is unnecessary[/footnote] try to correct someone on the facts in an argument, They[footnote]the 't' should not be capitalized[/footnote] would[footnote]once again, unnecessary use of the word "would"[/footnote] suddenly get treated to a dishing out over their grammar!
Our writer monkey's[footnote]should not have an apostrophe[/footnote] started calling in sick from work because of the amount of stupid discussions they had to deal with.

Therefore our sophisticated tech lads have come up with something : Fontaine's Law.
This law states that whenever someone feels a little threatened on the Internet[footnote]missing comma[/footnote] they will always revert to correcting other peoples grammar[footnote]missing comma[/footnote] to show how smart and literate they are (Usually messing up in the process themselves).
This will then lead to endless debate on grammar and endless correcting of another's grammar.
We can therefore conclude by Fontaine's Law that the argument is now over.

So now we hope our writer monkeys[footnote]you got this one right, strangely[/footnote] have a lot less trouble with useless discussions.
We here at our corporation[footnote]missing comma[/footnote] value the wealth that grammar brings to our language[footnote]missing comma[/footnote] and we will not be refraining from using it as correctly as we can.
We do however wish to put a stop to these endless discussions by this new law.

Cole : Ain't nothing but the grammar baby!

You forgot the periods.

See it's already working.

Edit : The word "would" is in fine order as it is sir, seeing as this is past tense it's perfectly viable.

 

[Callate]

It may be a shallow defense mechanism to correct others' grammar or punctuation rather than addressing the thrust of their argument. But it isn't always so, nor does it change that showing an inadequate grasp of the language you're using to communicate really does have the effect of undermining others' willingness to engage.

You may be the greatest astrophysicist in the world, but you're still not going to get taken seriously if you come to the symposium wearing a clown costume. Showing some care in what you write is partly a matter of showing your fellow posters respect and thus demonstrating that you deserve the same.

Now, I'm far from suggesting that it isn't ridiculous to jump on every dangling participle, errant apostrophe, or extra space between punctuation marks; doing so would certainly disqualify a large number of my posts as well. I'm just saying having a rule that allows automatic dismissal of such remarks is almost as blunt an instrument, so to speak, as the remarks themselves.

 

[Ljs1121]

Can't recall ever derailing a conversation into a 100% discussion about grammar. Typically if I correct someone they reply with "Shut up" or "You know what I meant", so I've just stopped correcting them.

 

[Faladorian]

Wait, just on the internet?


Any time I try to have any conversation with anybody in my family it INSTANTLY degrades into grammar.

If I try to make a point but I made a grammatical mistake, they'll turn all their attention to that and completely ignore what I was talking about.


And if I try to stop arguing about grammar, I get that "Okay, I'll have mercy on you because you're still wrong and still stupid," look.

 

[Blunderboy]

It may be a shallow defense mechanism to correct others' grammar or punctuation rather than addressing the thrust of their argument. But it isn't always so, nor does it change that showing an inadequate grasp of the language you're using to communicate really does have the effect of undermining others' willingness to engage.

You may be the greatest astrophysicist in the world, but you're still not going to get taken seriously if you come to the symposium wearing a clown costume. Showing some care in what you write is partly a matter of showing your fellow posters respect and thus demonstrating that you deserve the same.

Now, I'm far from suggesting that it isn't ridiculous to jump on every dangling participle, errant apostrophe, or extra space between punctuation marks; doing so would certainly disqualify a large number of my posts as well. I'm just saying having a rule that allows automatic dismissal of such remarks is almost as blunt an instrument, so to speak, as the remarks themselves.

What this here guy done said is what ya'll might call a mighty fine representation of my own musings on the subject..

 

[MPerce]

Wait, just on the internet?


Any time I try to have any conversation with anybody in my family it INSTANTLY degrades into grammar.

If I try to make a point but I made a grammatical mistake, they'll turn all their attention to that and completely ignore what I was talking about.


And if I try to stop arguing about grammar, I get that "Okay, I'll have mercy on you because you're still wrong and still stupid," look.

I was just about to say this. My family's the same way, so I can relate to your pain.

While it is most common on the Internet, there are plenty of people IRL that behave like this.

 

[Faladorian]

I was just about to say this. My family's the same way, so I can relate to your pain.

While it is most common on the Internet, there are plenty of people IRL that behave like this.

It's absolutely infuriating. Then they wonder why I don't like to talk to them. Then they prove me right. "Every time we talk it always goes back to semantics." "It's not every time... Plus, that sentence was redundant."

 

[teqrevisited]

No but it's amusing, if a little sad, to watch. Youtube is the easiest place to watch the fights as they unfold.

I love how as soon as someone's called out for it the argument either devolves into "No fuck you fucking ******" etc or it becomes the most fake-polite argument ever. Their sentences get shorter and shorter in length as they try to emphasise points by being blunt and, more often than not, they completely forget what it was they were arguing about in the first place.

 

[Colour Scientist]

fake-polite argument ever

I hate that, when both people involved are trying to look more rational than the other so they add in things to give the illusion of politeness.

Something like "you're a retarded asshole, good sir" or "I respect your opinion but I hate you and your motherfucking family" but obviously a bit more subtle than that.

 

[Goofguy]

Yes, I've done it from time to time. I don't care if there are a couple of little mistakes but when the statement is somewhat incoherent and messy, then I'll resort to being correction. It's not that I'm out to prove a point, I just can't stand seeing something so sloppy.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

I do this all the time in real life. Mostly to my mother. She keeps saying "that clothes". It's quite annoying. So I annoy her by correcting everything she does. It's only fair.

 

[Mouse One]

I like Fontaine's law. There should be a corollary about the fact that people who correct other people's grammar invariably making spelling and punctuation mistakes while they're doing it.

Anyway, internet posts are dialogue, and as any writer can tell you, if you're doing dialogue, you write how people talk, not how Strunk and White's says is proper (and yep, I'm fully aware of the grammatical error in that last sentence).

 

[CMDDarkblade]

fake-polite argument ever

I hate that, when both people involved are trying to look more rational than the other so they add in things to give the illusion of politeness.

Something like "you're a retarded asshole, good sir" or "I respect your opinion but I hate you and your motherfucking family" but obviously a bit more subtle than that.

Well there is a subtle but distinct difference between being a smug douche that speaks with condescending faux-politeness, and someone who actually maintains politeness and courtesy in a discussion/argument while still holding an absolute hatred of the other person/opinion. I try my best to hold the latter position.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

fake-polite argument ever

I hate that, when both people involved are trying to look more rational than the other so they add in things to give the illusion of politeness.

Something like "you're a retarded asshole, good sir" or "I respect your opinion but I hate you and your motherfucking family" but obviously a bit more subtle than that.

Well there is a subtle but distinct difference between being a smug douche that speaks with condescending faux-politeness, and someone who actually maintains politeness and courtesy in a discussion/argument while still holding an absolute hatred of the other person/opinion. I try my best to hold the latter position.

I concur, it's not that when I hate you I'm blatantly going to shank you when I see you.
Some people just calmly approach these situations.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Shoop!-

*Checks spelling and grammar*

He's clean. Let 'im go.

Spoiler: Note

I didn't actually check.