Gen Z Netiquettes(manyonepercents.substack.com)
manyonepercents.substack.com
Gen Z Netiquettes
https://manyonepercents.substack.com/p/productive-online-communication-gen-z
268 comments
I interact with a fair number of people who are either older Gen Z, or younger Millennials. They don't follow half of the rules in the blog post (example: you become un-dateable if you don't use lots of emojis on dating apps... seriously?). Of the rest, many have been around for decades (example: imperfect capitalization and punctuation does, in fact, imply informality, always has).
If you read someone's text and then also read their Instagram story and you still haven't replied, that's fine. If anything it's a bit of a power move. But really it's just what ends up happening when you're busy and don't have time to dick around on social media and overthink shit.
The article smacks of a mild anxiety disorder which is a common affliction of youth (sadly increasingly these days it's not so mild). The author would do well to ignore other people's petty shit and spend the next decade preoccupied with kicking ass at whatever he's best at.
If you read someone's text and then also read their Instagram story and you still haven't replied, that's fine. If anything it's a bit of a power move. But really it's just what ends up happening when you're busy and don't have time to dick around on social media and overthink shit.
The article smacks of a mild anxiety disorder which is a common affliction of youth (sadly increasingly these days it's not so mild). The author would do well to ignore other people's petty shit and spend the next decade preoccupied with kicking ass at whatever he's best at.
Yeah, much of these (or variations) applied to online live chat or async forums in the '90s. Though different venues had different conventions.
And rules like in the article would all be easy to remember. What's not in the article is whether/what skills you'll need to develop to process all this information and noise.
For example, I remember seeing a busy chat room for the first time in the mid-'90s, and there was so much people talking, and it was scrolling seemingly too fast to read. (Bonus: I was on a then-vintage green CRT terminal, HP 2392A, at that moment, so incomprehensible scrolling of symbols was not entirely unlike the Matrix visual.)
But after some experience with the chat, it was no longer overwhelming. I could glance at the scrollage and have a sense of who was talking, what was being discussed, and possibly some meta of what was going on. And, for incoming messages, I could be tracking and selectively focusing among the often multiple concurrent threads of conversation.
I suppose skills a bit analogous to that might include how to manage the many different online services today you have to be on today, applying critical processing to advertising/engagement feed algorithms, juggling all this inefficient stuff with more real-life things, etc.
And rules like in the article would all be easy to remember. What's not in the article is whether/what skills you'll need to develop to process all this information and noise.
For example, I remember seeing a busy chat room for the first time in the mid-'90s, and there was so much people talking, and it was scrolling seemingly too fast to read. (Bonus: I was on a then-vintage green CRT terminal, HP 2392A, at that moment, so incomprehensible scrolling of symbols was not entirely unlike the Matrix visual.)
But after some experience with the chat, it was no longer overwhelming. I could glance at the scrollage and have a sense of who was talking, what was being discussed, and possibly some meta of what was going on. And, for incoming messages, I could be tracking and selectively focusing among the often multiple concurrent threads of conversation.
I suppose skills a bit analogous to that might include how to manage the many different online services today you have to be on today, applying critical processing to advertising/engagement feed algorithms, juggling all this inefficient stuff with more real-life things, etc.
A lot of it isn’t just chat native stuff imo.
All the rules around instagram likes and reposting, the rules around “k”, that “:)” is passive aggressive etc. A lot of that feels juvenile which makes sense if it’s a gen z post. I’d guess it’ll stop once out of teens and early to mid twenties.
I think when people are more secure/confident they stop doing as much meta analysis of this kind.
All the rules around instagram likes and reposting, the rules around “k”, that “:)” is passive aggressive etc. A lot of that feels juvenile which makes sense if it’s a gen z post. I’d guess it’ll stop once out of teens and early to mid twenties.
I think when people are more secure/confident they stop doing as much meta analysis of this kind.
k
Yes, feeling offended about being called young is part of the package too. We know, we used to be.
Pretty strongly disagree with this. I consider myself "chat native". Talking to people on the internet via text has been my primary method of interpersonal communication to people outside my family for 20 years now, from around when I was in middle school. I'm as "chat native" as you come and a lot of this has nothing to do with "chat native" anything.
The full stop thing has been around since IRC networks, or I imagine any quick-response short message platform. No one ever explicitly explains it or notes it, you just pick up on it.
Same with the difference colours of laughter "lol, rofl, haha, hahaha, lmao, ha." They're all just laughing but I bet you had different ideas about how each of them feel. This happens with language at large, synonymous words pick up nuanced differences so that we can express ourselves better, they aren't codified they just spread naturally.
I think for full stops, it's like the difference between familiar language and polite language. If you are too polite with a close friend you give off the impression that you're not close enough for casual language, which can be insulting.
Same with the difference colours of laughter "lol, rofl, haha, hahaha, lmao, ha." They're all just laughing but I bet you had different ideas about how each of them feel. This happens with language at large, synonymous words pick up nuanced differences so that we can express ourselves better, they aren't codified they just spread naturally.
I think for full stops, it's like the difference between familiar language and polite language. If you are too polite with a close friend you give off the impression that you're not close enough for casual language, which can be insulting.
Logged in to say the same; all of these have ultimately formed back in IRC days and have aged remarkably well since
The only one that is new (and therefore annoying to me as an Old Internet Man) is the insistance of adding emojis into every sentence
For a while I could guess someones approximate age because of it, but now some of my 40+ friends have started emojiing like a 14 year olds too
The only one that is new (and therefore annoying to me as an Old Internet Man) is the insistance of adding emojis into every sentence
For a while I could guess someones approximate age because of it, but now some of my 40+ friends have started emojiing like a 14 year olds too
Emojis are a more granular and expressive form of the more traditional lol, rofl, haha, :), :(. They’re a useful side channel for expressing tone.
They're really not though, because they render differently on different devices. If I send a gun emoji, it may render as a squirt gun for you for instance. Very different meanings.
Also the way I feel about certain emojis is different from how you feel about them and thus carry different (if slightly) meaning.
For example, I pretty much never use the clown emoji as I find it personally offensive. But I'm sure that pretty much everyone else doesn't feel the same about it.
For example, I pretty much never use the clown emoji as I find it personally offensive. But I'm sure that pretty much everyone else doesn't feel the same about it.
The triumph emoji is a very good example of this.
Westerners use it to signify they're pissed while it actually means triumph in Asia I believe.
Westerners use it to signify they're pissed while it actually means triumph in Asia I believe.
while true, many platforms like whatsapp use their own emojis so you know that it looks the same to everyone
That isn't a feature though. As it means and renders completely different in different contexts and apps.
They're a useful way to not take someone seriously.
The absolutely annoying thing about emojis is that different platforms render them in different ways.
this doesn't really matter though, because you still now the meaning of the Emoji. Letters also render different, depending on the font, without their meaning changing
This is not true. The actual form has meaning too. Extreme example: if someone sends a romantic message, they typically don't want it rendered in a font typically used for the title on a horror DVD.
does that commonly happen though? emoji exist in unicode so meaning should remain consistent. in fact, here is how popular emoji render across platforms: https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html
It doesn't matter. Communication is often sensitive enough to not mess with it in any way. And there is no reason why emoji could not be transmitted without mutations (their size is negligible).
It's been amusing to see the evolution of things like 'lol' in particular go from ubiquitous to very much frowned on and now back full circle to being a lot more common. I don't think "xD" and friends will come back though, especially with emojis.
Excuse me, my friends and I (but mostly I) use xD and variations extensively.
I actually stopped using it for a long time before unashamedly returning to it. It's just so easy compared to other shows of levity, AND it's scalable. xD is some levity. XDDDDDD is MORE levity. Like with :))))), except that's some psychotic boomer Russian shit. x3 adds a cuteness squee element to it. xP is more playful.
I actually stopped using it for a long time before unashamedly returning to it. It's just so easy compared to other shows of levity, AND it's scalable. xD is some levity. XDDDDDD is MORE levity. Like with :))))), except that's some psychotic boomer Russian shit. x3 adds a cuteness squee element to it. xP is more playful.
I've not seen "xD" in a long time, but I do see "xd" used as a less-intense version of "xD".
> I think for full stops, it's like the difference between familiar language and polite language. If you are too polite with a close friend you give off the impression that you're not close enough for casual language, which can be insulting.
But it's also great for dry humor over text. Like when you switch to corporate-speak as a joke between friends:
A: "Looks like our main factory just blew up"
B: "Yes. Given the prevailing macroeconomic conditions, I felt that downsizing that factory was critical to actioning the quarterly plan."
---
Or alternatively, when you're sending a flurry of messages and want to show that you're done with the thought:
A: "Looks like things are improving"
A: "Like, the RAM use just dropped by ~20%"
A: "the GC probably just finished."
But it's also great for dry humor over text. Like when you switch to corporate-speak as a joke between friends:
A: "Looks like our main factory just blew up"
B: "Yes. Given the prevailing macroeconomic conditions, I felt that downsizing that factory was critical to actioning the quarterly plan."
---
Or alternatively, when you're sending a flurry of messages and want to show that you're done with the thought:
A: "Looks like things are improving"
A: "Like, the RAM use just dropped by ~20%"
A: "the GC probably just finished."
I was a longtime user of IRC networks and never saw people care about conveying messages with a full stop or lack of it. That just never had any part of it.
I believe fullstop is from the telegram days.
It's from Aristophanes of Byzantium in the 3rd century BCE.
I knew it was older than texting:)
To close the loop on this, here is some greek texting! [1] :smiley:
[1] https://blogs.transparent.com/greek/texting-and-tweeting-in-...
[1] https://blogs.transparent.com/greek/texting-and-tweeting-in-...
:).
> 9. Capitalizing the first letter in a sentence will reveal where you are
This one really surprises me, if someone contacted me without bothering to type a proper sentence I would just think they're an idiot. Everyone I know always starts a sentence with a capital letter, no matter the platform. They all know how to use the shift key.
This isn't even gate keeping, people use slang all the time, it is basic English. News, books, articles, tutorials, emails, teams, share point... Everything I read every day has proper capitalization.
This one really surprises me, if someone contacted me without bothering to type a proper sentence I would just think they're an idiot. Everyone I know always starts a sentence with a capital letter, no matter the platform. They all know how to use the shift key.
This isn't even gate keeping, people use slang all the time, it is basic English. News, books, articles, tutorials, emails, teams, share point... Everything I read every day has proper capitalization.
I think you're being overly harsh on this when it comes to informal communication.
As others pointed out, capitalization is similar to white space, punctuation, and other tools that English has when it comes to informal communication.
Especially online, you can invoke a lot of imagery and thoughts and emotions by simply playing with the rules of English in a live-chat setting. Try to imagine in a chat the following sentence with different stylizations:
"The Customer is always right, so we need to work to correct this"
"thE CUsTomer iS aLWays RIght, So WE neEd To WoRK To cOrrECT thiS"
"the customer is always right, so we need to work to correct this :))))"
The first is quite formal and it's direct; perhaps it could be understood as sarcasm if someone knows you well, but it could also be taken at face value and quite seriously, or it could be taken as a throw-away statement.
The second indicates a mocking tone and maybe even resentment, taking the time to mimic a meme and also to purposefully make the sentence silly looking.
The third introduces the sarcastic smiley (I disagree with the article's interpretation, as I've always seen :))) to more represent desperation or exasperation)
With traditional rules of English, tone is difficult to convey with a single sentence and it's built with the surrounding text as a point of consideration to understand how to interpret a statement; with chat, this is far more difficult to communicate the emotion/intention as chats can be very fast and disconnected, and it's hard to follow the attitude and mood of a person to understand their intended messaging.
You could try to divorce the message from the emotions, which might lead to expediting some discussions, but it also leaves a lot of room for incorrect/wrong interpretations. Even if you divorce yourself from such concerns and try to be above it, your conversation partners might not approach it the same way.
The evolution of chat might be bastardizing the classic rules of English, but it's quite expressive and personally has made many conversations and relationships much easier with fewer misunderstandings.
As others pointed out, capitalization is similar to white space, punctuation, and other tools that English has when it comes to informal communication.
Especially online, you can invoke a lot of imagery and thoughts and emotions by simply playing with the rules of English in a live-chat setting. Try to imagine in a chat the following sentence with different stylizations:
"The Customer is always right, so we need to work to correct this"
"thE CUsTomer iS aLWays RIght, So WE neEd To WoRK To cOrrECT thiS"
"the customer is always right, so we need to work to correct this :))))"
The first is quite formal and it's direct; perhaps it could be understood as sarcasm if someone knows you well, but it could also be taken at face value and quite seriously, or it could be taken as a throw-away statement.
The second indicates a mocking tone and maybe even resentment, taking the time to mimic a meme and also to purposefully make the sentence silly looking.
The third introduces the sarcastic smiley (I disagree with the article's interpretation, as I've always seen :))) to more represent desperation or exasperation)
With traditional rules of English, tone is difficult to convey with a single sentence and it's built with the surrounding text as a point of consideration to understand how to interpret a statement; with chat, this is far more difficult to communicate the emotion/intention as chats can be very fast and disconnected, and it's hard to follow the attitude and mood of a person to understand their intended messaging.
You could try to divorce the message from the emotions, which might lead to expediting some discussions, but it also leaves a lot of room for incorrect/wrong interpretations. Even if you divorce yourself from such concerns and try to be above it, your conversation partners might not approach it the same way.
The evolution of chat might be bastardizing the classic rules of English, but it's quite expressive and personally has made many conversations and relationships much easier with fewer misunderstandings.
I work with a lot of people from abroad, where English isn't their first language. I also have a lot of friends who are foreign too. Trying to read into the "tone" is pointless. Simple sentences, with punctuation and grammar goes a long way. A benefit of not having tone imbued as some intangible quality of how a sentence is written down makes it very easy to communicate with them. If they are pissed off, they just say it. If they are not liking a project at work, they just say it. If you want them to do something, you just say it.
These "gen-Z" rules are great if you are 15 and have nothing more to do with your time than worry if Emily fancies you or not by how many chins she gave her ascii text art smile. I was there: when I was a teenager on IRC and MSN messenger I was on hooks at the smallest detail; how long was it taking someone to reply, have they received the message, oh-no they're replying now I better not type out a message, they signed off "ilyvm" not "ily" they must have really liked me today...
This sounds quite dismissive, and it is in a way. "Old" people don't need to understand the difference between "k" and "k.". Gen-Z need to communicate to their audience and there's nothing more embarrassing than old people learning young people lingo.
These "gen-Z" rules are great if you are 15 and have nothing more to do with your time than worry if Emily fancies you or not by how many chins she gave her ascii text art smile. I was there: when I was a teenager on IRC and MSN messenger I was on hooks at the smallest detail; how long was it taking someone to reply, have they received the message, oh-no they're replying now I better not type out a message, they signed off "ilyvm" not "ily" they must have really liked me today...
This sounds quite dismissive, and it is in a way. "Old" people don't need to understand the difference between "k" and "k.". Gen-Z need to communicate to their audience and there's nothing more embarrassing than old people learning young people lingo.
I work with the exact same setup and demographics across the globe, from Eastern Europe to China to India to Japan to the US to South America.
These aren't US specific Gen-Z rules, these are quite global. This is happening far outside the scope you're limiting it to, and it matters.
These aren't US specific Gen-Z rules, these are quite global. This is happening far outside the scope you're limiting it to, and it matters.
> This is happening far outside the scope you're limiting it to, and it matters
Do you mean that you usually interact at work with people than cannot properly capitalize sentences, like we learned to do in primary school in practically any language that uses the Latin alphabet?
I capitalize English because capitalization in my language (and any other language I can write) follows the same exact rules.
It is a rule, it doesn't take much, capitalizing sentences at best proves that people know the basic grammar rules of the language and know when and how to use them, nothing more.
Not doing it proves that people either don't care or don't know the basic rules of the language, which says a lot more than doing it properly.
Do you mean that you usually interact at work with people than cannot properly capitalize sentences, like we learned to do in primary school in practically any language that uses the Latin alphabet?
I capitalize English because capitalization in my language (and any other language I can write) follows the same exact rules.
It is a rule, it doesn't take much, capitalizing sentences at best proves that people know the basic grammar rules of the language and know when and how to use them, nothing more.
Not doing it proves that people either don't care or don't know the basic rules of the language, which says a lot more than doing it properly.
I think you hit the nail on the head - at a certain point caring about every single rule isn’t effective or is actually net less effective.
On HN I’ll use correct punctuation, grammar, and a wider set of vocabulary because there’s a good chance my message will come across more clearly.
For general emails, I’ll write with simpler language because it’s very much a get-in-get-out activity especially with more senior stakeholders.
For work comms, what’s the value in typing HN-style? Everyone already knows everyone else is smart. I believe communicating tone is more valuable than perfect punctuation and grammar, which make it much harder to get that across.
Or as my grandma used to say - you don’t treat people you want to be treated, you treat them the way they want to be treated.
On HN I’ll use correct punctuation, grammar, and a wider set of vocabulary because there’s a good chance my message will come across more clearly.
For general emails, I’ll write with simpler language because it’s very much a get-in-get-out activity especially with more senior stakeholders.
For work comms, what’s the value in typing HN-style? Everyone already knows everyone else is smart. I believe communicating tone is more valuable than perfect punctuation and grammar, which make it much harder to get that across.
Or as my grandma used to say - you don’t treat people you want to be treated, you treat them the way they want to be treated.
> at a certain point caring about every single rule isn’t effective or is actually net less effective
My point is the exact opposite though: I've been writing like this for all of my life, for at least 40 years, to write like I don't care I need to actually think about it and put a lot more effort into it, because it feels unnatural, looks wrong and makes me immediately doubt of the quality of the content I produced.
Especially at work, where when I write something, it is for other people to read, sometimes many.
But I also capitalize my personal notes.
So, to me, your explanation of why you don't do it sounds like "look at me, I don't follow rules because we are all smart here, right guys? ... right?".
Don't want to be offensive, but correct grammar should be muscle memory by now.
Relying on muscle memory is good because it works on autopilot and let you focus on what's important.
My point is the exact opposite though: I've been writing like this for all of my life, for at least 40 years, to write like I don't care I need to actually think about it and put a lot more effort into it, because it feels unnatural, looks wrong and makes me immediately doubt of the quality of the content I produced.
Especially at work, where when I write something, it is for other people to read, sometimes many.
But I also capitalize my personal notes.
So, to me, your explanation of why you don't do it sounds like "look at me, I don't follow rules because we are all smart here, right guys? ... right?".
Don't want to be offensive, but correct grammar should be muscle memory by now.
Relying on muscle memory is good because it works on autopilot and let you focus on what's important.
That's fair, but your writing style mostly optimizes for you, your comfort, and your speed. And I say that as someone who started memorizing SAT words at the age of 8 - most people actually prefer to read a high school level (myself included in work contexts).
I didn't learn this lesson the hard way until I was past my mid-20s. When you write something for others, it's far better to optimize for them rather than for yourself. Let's say you spend twice as much time writing something in an 'odd' way, but it gets your 50% more reach or alignment or funding. That's probably actually a great use of your time.
> So, to me, your explanation of why you don't do it sounds like "look at me, I don't follow rules because we are all smart here, right guys? ... right?".
It's not about being contrarian, it's about the tradeoff. Tone is incredibly important in most situations.
When you write with perfect grammar and punctuation, most people don't know how to read into the nuance. Happy? Joyful? Pleased? Content? There's very little, if any, common understanding of the intensity or undertone in those adjectives. Imagine you're working with a new PM and he tells you the team's progress is 'acceptable.' What does that mean exactly? Is he happy with it? Is he mildly annoyed? Does he feel like things are off track and actually wants to talk more?
So how do we build this common understanding? It turns out most people have actually already built up a language with their friends! Through texts/DMs/etc. So when that language is ported over to a work context, most people immediately grasp it.
You can conform to the world or the world can conform to you. <-- A sentence where tone would be helpful.
I didn't learn this lesson the hard way until I was past my mid-20s. When you write something for others, it's far better to optimize for them rather than for yourself. Let's say you spend twice as much time writing something in an 'odd' way, but it gets your 50% more reach or alignment or funding. That's probably actually a great use of your time.
> So, to me, your explanation of why you don't do it sounds like "look at me, I don't follow rules because we are all smart here, right guys? ... right?".
It's not about being contrarian, it's about the tradeoff. Tone is incredibly important in most situations.
When you write with perfect grammar and punctuation, most people don't know how to read into the nuance. Happy? Joyful? Pleased? Content? There's very little, if any, common understanding of the intensity or undertone in those adjectives. Imagine you're working with a new PM and he tells you the team's progress is 'acceptable.' What does that mean exactly? Is he happy with it? Is he mildly annoyed? Does he feel like things are off track and actually wants to talk more?
So how do we build this common understanding? It turns out most people have actually already built up a language with their friends! Through texts/DMs/etc. So when that language is ported over to a work context, most people immediately grasp it.
You can conform to the world or the world can conform to you. <-- A sentence where tone would be helpful.
> When you write with perfect grammar and punctuation, most people don't know how to read into the nuance
I still can't understand the argument here, it sounds so off that seems fabricated to me.
When you read the Divine Comedy (we study it in high school in Italy) the grammar is not in current modern Italian, the style is from 550 years ago, the poem is written in hendecasyllables in terza rima [1], the references are often obscure, but in no point of it the tone is hard to understand, because the author conveys it explicitly.
Writing is a non-verbal, not-in-person, form of communication, you can't look for what's not in it.
Assuming a neutral tone unless specified otherwise, it's always the best bet.
Also, as I've said before, improper grammar could also mean "I don't know the grammar of your language well enough", if I'm writing French, I make a lot of mistakes because I don't use it very often, so the tone is the last of my concerns and the people reading it could easily think it's from a 9 year old kid who hasn't finished primary school yet.
If you think that correct grammar is more than just "the proper way to use the language" you're most probably seeing too much into it.
> Imagine you're working with a new PM and he tells you the team's progress is 'acceptable.' What does that mean exactly?
it means "acceptable"
in a scale from 0 to 10 acceptable is >= 6 and < 7
but, when in doubt, ask, words are free.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terza_rima
I still can't understand the argument here, it sounds so off that seems fabricated to me.
When you read the Divine Comedy (we study it in high school in Italy) the grammar is not in current modern Italian, the style is from 550 years ago, the poem is written in hendecasyllables in terza rima [1], the references are often obscure, but in no point of it the tone is hard to understand, because the author conveys it explicitly.
l’ora del tempo e la dolce stagione;
ma non sì che paura non mi desse
la vista che m’apparve d’un leone.
Questi parea che contra me venisse
con la test’alta e con rabbiosa fame,
sì che parea che l’aere ne tremesse.
Writing is a non-verbal, not-in-person, form of communication, you can't look for what's not in it.
Assuming a neutral tone unless specified otherwise, it's always the best bet.
Also, as I've said before, improper grammar could also mean "I don't know the grammar of your language well enough", if I'm writing French, I make a lot of mistakes because I don't use it very often, so the tone is the last of my concerns and the people reading it could easily think it's from a 9 year old kid who hasn't finished primary school yet.
If you think that correct grammar is more than just "the proper way to use the language" you're most probably seeing too much into it.
> Imagine you're working with a new PM and he tells you the team's progress is 'acceptable.' What does that mean exactly?
it means "acceptable"
in a scale from 0 to 10 acceptable is >= 6 and < 7
but, when in doubt, ask, words are free.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terza_rima
> Assuming a neutral tone unless specified otherwise, it's always the best bet.
I actually believe most writing is non-neutral in nature. Every word choice and sentence structure conveys meaning, intentional or not.
For example, why did Dante describe the sight of a lion as making "the air tremble" rather than cause "a stillness in the air"? Or a slightly more powerful variant, "a silence in the air"? My guess is that he wanted to call attention to how dominating the lion's presence was, that even the air was humbled/scared. That's how intimidating and commandeering the lion was. (Very intentional word choice here by me to pair with enraged!)
Maybe that's the wrong interpretation, but we also have people who study exactly this! The nuance of literary works and their meanings.
The article mentions a difference between 'lol' and 'haha' - if you boil it down, is that really so different from 'the air tremble' vs. 'a stillness in the air'? It's word choice again, ultimately.
> Also, as I've said before, improper grammar could also mean "I don't know the grammar of your language well enough", if I'm writing French, I make a lot of mistakes because I don't use it very often, so the tone is the last of my concerns and the people reading it could easily think it's from a 9 year old kid who hasn't finished primary school yet.
Maybe this is why we disagree - I believe that once relative fluency is assumed, tone becomes more important.
Mandarin is a great example here. Most people who are just starting to learn Mandarin focus on vocabulary, pronouns, etc. But once you get to a more advanced stage, it reveals a really unique twist.
Informal 'modal particles' [1] are optional in sentences but also can significantly change the mood. You'd never use them in formal writing (they're not exactly professional), but in practice people use them in everyday written communications. Interestingly enough, they're by default pronounced in a neutral tone but can also be inflected with more emotion even though Mandarin is already a tonal language.
English doesn't have modal particles, and the closest equivalent I've seen are these Gen Z Netiquettes (which aren't only for Gen Z as a few people have pointed out).
---
As an example:
1. 吃饭: eat food
2. 吃饭吧: eat food, we should (friendly but also commanding)
3. 吃饭吗: eat food, want to? (friendly but more suggestive)
---
In English, you could write it like this instead:
1. food
2. we should get food
3. want to get food?
---
But that's not exactly right, because Mandarin also has formal sentences for those forms:
1. 吃饭: eat food
2. 应该吃饭: should eat food
3. 要不要吃饭: want to eat food or not?
---
So closer parallels in English instead could be:
1. food
2. food :eyes_emoji: [2]
3. food? :drooling_face_emoji: [3]
---
And as the article mentions, you can even merge 2 modal particles into a new one that's equal to the combined mood of both. For extra nuance!
e.g. 吃饭了吗: eat food, have you already done it? (friendly)
I think there's some truth to the idea that emojis are a bit of madness (but are also here to stay), but I disagree that nuance doesn't exist in written communication. It's existed for hundreds of years already, as mentioned above in the Dante example. Emojis are just a modern-day version of nuance.
In your original post, you mention:
> Not doing it [capitalization] proves that people either don't care or don't know the basic rules of the language, which says a lot more than doing it properly.
The third (more charitable) possibility is that people are intentionally doing it for nuance. For example, I capitalize in formal emails with customers but use lowercase with friends. My guess is that most people I work with do the same, and more importantly know others are also aware of this.
So at work, I can either choose to treat my coworkers as closer to customers or closer to friends. You can likely guess what that means. (<-- another example of a short sentence where tone is lost - was I amused? condescending? factual? <spoiler> it was the first </spoiler>)
Lastly, while you may personally disagree with the existence of nuance, it's hard to deny that a large chunk of people do infer nuance from text - just looking at this HN thread alone! So the takeaway I'd lightly (and not firmly!) suggest again is that it's worth optimizing for others in certain situations even if it seems like madness.
[1] https://medium.com/@glossika/chinese-grammar-how-to-use-moda...
[2] https://emojipedia.org/eyes/
[3] https://emojipedia.org/drooling-face/
I actually believe most writing is non-neutral in nature. Every word choice and sentence structure conveys meaning, intentional or not.
For example, why did Dante describe the sight of a lion as making "the air tremble" rather than cause "a stillness in the air"? Or a slightly more powerful variant, "a silence in the air"? My guess is that he wanted to call attention to how dominating the lion's presence was, that even the air was humbled/scared. That's how intimidating and commandeering the lion was. (Very intentional word choice here by me to pair with enraged!)
Maybe that's the wrong interpretation, but we also have people who study exactly this! The nuance of literary works and their meanings.
The article mentions a difference between 'lol' and 'haha' - if you boil it down, is that really so different from 'the air tremble' vs. 'a stillness in the air'? It's word choice again, ultimately.
> Also, as I've said before, improper grammar could also mean "I don't know the grammar of your language well enough", if I'm writing French, I make a lot of mistakes because I don't use it very often, so the tone is the last of my concerns and the people reading it could easily think it's from a 9 year old kid who hasn't finished primary school yet.
Maybe this is why we disagree - I believe that once relative fluency is assumed, tone becomes more important.
Mandarin is a great example here. Most people who are just starting to learn Mandarin focus on vocabulary, pronouns, etc. But once you get to a more advanced stage, it reveals a really unique twist.
Informal 'modal particles' [1] are optional in sentences but also can significantly change the mood. You'd never use them in formal writing (they're not exactly professional), but in practice people use them in everyday written communications. Interestingly enough, they're by default pronounced in a neutral tone but can also be inflected with more emotion even though Mandarin is already a tonal language.
English doesn't have modal particles, and the closest equivalent I've seen are these Gen Z Netiquettes (which aren't only for Gen Z as a few people have pointed out).
---
As an example:
1. 吃饭: eat food
2. 吃饭吧: eat food, we should (friendly but also commanding)
3. 吃饭吗: eat food, want to? (friendly but more suggestive)
---
In English, you could write it like this instead:
1. food
2. we should get food
3. want to get food?
---
But that's not exactly right, because Mandarin also has formal sentences for those forms:
1. 吃饭: eat food
2. 应该吃饭: should eat food
3. 要不要吃饭: want to eat food or not?
---
So closer parallels in English instead could be:
1. food
2. food :eyes_emoji: [2]
3. food? :drooling_face_emoji: [3]
---
And as the article mentions, you can even merge 2 modal particles into a new one that's equal to the combined mood of both. For extra nuance!
e.g. 吃饭了吗: eat food, have you already done it? (friendly)
I think there's some truth to the idea that emojis are a bit of madness (but are also here to stay), but I disagree that nuance doesn't exist in written communication. It's existed for hundreds of years already, as mentioned above in the Dante example. Emojis are just a modern-day version of nuance.
In your original post, you mention:
> Not doing it [capitalization] proves that people either don't care or don't know the basic rules of the language, which says a lot more than doing it properly.
The third (more charitable) possibility is that people are intentionally doing it for nuance. For example, I capitalize in formal emails with customers but use lowercase with friends. My guess is that most people I work with do the same, and more importantly know others are also aware of this.
So at work, I can either choose to treat my coworkers as closer to customers or closer to friends. You can likely guess what that means. (<-- another example of a short sentence where tone is lost - was I amused? condescending? factual? <spoiler> it was the first </spoiler>)
Lastly, while you may personally disagree with the existence of nuance, it's hard to deny that a large chunk of people do infer nuance from text - just looking at this HN thread alone! So the takeaway I'd lightly (and not firmly!) suggest again is that it's worth optimizing for others in certain situations even if it seems like madness.
[1] https://medium.com/@glossika/chinese-grammar-how-to-use-moda...
[2] https://emojipedia.org/eyes/
[3] https://emojipedia.org/drooling-face/
> I actually believe most writing is non-neutral in nature. Every word choice and sentence structure conveys meaning, intentional or not.
Neutral as "exactly what it says", not "without any inflection".
Tone in writing is conveyed through how sentences are formed, which forms you use, what kind of words you chose, how verbose/succint you are, etc.
Capitalization does not mean anything special, it's only a grammar rule used to separate sentences and make reading easier.
if someone thinks that not capitalizing sentences means being informal, why not write in plain incorrect English, or using some street slang, or communicate by sending memes, where is the limit?
English speakers make a lot of fuss around things that are common in many other languages.
Mandarin is one, Italian, my language, is another (we have modal particles too).
If you want to be formal there's a form called "dare del lei" ( address someone in the third person ), if you want (or can) be informal it is called "dare del tu" (address someone in the second person, the regular you)
> The third (more charitable) possibility is that people are intentionally doing it for nuance
> So at work, I can either choose to treat my coworkers as closer to customers or closer to friends
Which is a lot of effort for little gain, at the risk of sounding sloppy.
There are much better ways, like using "Hi Mark" instead of "Good morning Mr. Stuart"
> , it's hard to deny that a large chunk of people do infer nuance from text -
Agree, from text not from text structure.
Text can be formal, informal and every other degree in between.
Structure can only be right or wrong, style only good or not good.
norwegian nobel committee oslo on behalf of the bureau of liberal international the global federation of liberal political parties I have the honour to bring to your attention our support for the nomination organized by the drugs peace institute of senator leila de lima of the philippines embattled democratic leader and internationally recognised human rights defender for the prestigious nobel peace prize
this is a very formal text in a not very good style (wall of text / blob of words)
EDIT:
So closer parallels in English instead could be:
1. food
2. food :eyes_emoji: [2]
3. food? :drooling_face_emoji: [3]
---
My version.
Words are free, use them.
Emojis are not as universal as people think, do not translate linearly across cultures and are not as easy to type.
I wouldn't say "food" as a single word to mean "here's your food" not even to a dog.
Maybe I would if I was a caveman in a comic.
Neutral as "exactly what it says", not "without any inflection".
Tone in writing is conveyed through how sentences are formed, which forms you use, what kind of words you chose, how verbose/succint you are, etc.
Capitalization does not mean anything special, it's only a grammar rule used to separate sentences and make reading easier.
if someone thinks that not capitalizing sentences means being informal, why not write in plain incorrect English, or using some street slang, or communicate by sending memes, where is the limit?
English speakers make a lot of fuss around things that are common in many other languages.
Mandarin is one, Italian, my language, is another (we have modal particles too).
If you want to be formal there's a form called "dare del lei" ( address someone in the third person ), if you want (or can) be informal it is called "dare del tu" (address someone in the second person, the regular you)
> The third (more charitable) possibility is that people are intentionally doing it for nuance
> So at work, I can either choose to treat my coworkers as closer to customers or closer to friends
Which is a lot of effort for little gain, at the risk of sounding sloppy.
There are much better ways, like using "Hi Mark" instead of "Good morning Mr. Stuart"
> , it's hard to deny that a large chunk of people do infer nuance from text -
Agree, from text not from text structure.
Text can be formal, informal and every other degree in between.
Structure can only be right or wrong, style only good or not good.
norwegian nobel committee oslo on behalf of the bureau of liberal international the global federation of liberal political parties I have the honour to bring to your attention our support for the nomination organized by the drugs peace institute of senator leila de lima of the philippines embattled democratic leader and internationally recognised human rights defender for the prestigious nobel peace prize
this is a very formal text in a not very good style (wall of text / blob of words)
EDIT:
So closer parallels in English instead could be:
1. food
2. food :eyes_emoji: [2]
3. food? :drooling_face_emoji: [3]
---
My version.
Words are free, use them.
Emojis are not as universal as people think, do not translate linearly across cultures and are not as easy to type.
I wouldn't say "food" as a single word to mean "here's your food" not even to a dog.
Maybe I would if I was a caveman in a comic.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, do people at your work write/communicate like Gen-Zers? Does Amber in HR get offended at your sharpness if you finish your sentence with a full stop?
> These aren't US specific Gen-Z rules, these are quite global.
These rules are specifically about English, and a younger generation. It's not as global as you think.
> These aren't US specific Gen-Z rules, these are quite global.
These rules are specifically about English, and a younger generation. It's not as global as you think.
> These aren't US specific Gen-Z rules, these are quite global. This is happening far outside the scope you're limiting it to, and it matters.
Given that almost all of these are English-specific or at least european language specific, no that is completely false.
Given that almost all of these are English-specific or at least european language specific, no that is completely false.
As someone who speak chinese. I can confirm this. If your boss or parent ever send message to you with your full name and properly closed sentence. You are running into something serious. It's not a English only rule.
> Especially online, you can invoke a lot of imagery and thoughts and emotions by simply playing with the rules of English in a live-chat setting
how about simply taking the sentences at face value?
"We need to improve on XXX"
Almost certainly means exactly what it says, no need to look for hidden emotions where most probably there are none.
We as humans have used written communication for millennia and no emotion got lost when they needed to be conveyed.
how about simply taking the sentences at face value?
"We need to improve on XXX"
Almost certainly means exactly what it says, no need to look for hidden emotions where most probably there are none.
We as humans have used written communication for millennia and no emotion got lost when they needed to be conveyed.
This seems like a very effective way to dismiss people that don't share your background. Also, not speaking basic English does not make one an idiot, there are actually quite a few other languages in the world.
> This seems like a very effective way to dismiss people that don't share your background.
Yes, my social-economic status is defined specifically by how I use capital letters.
Yes, my social-economic status is defined specifically by how I use capital letters.
>if someone contacted me
This netiquette is on chatting. And chatting in lower has been the case of choice since early IRC days.
This netiquette is on chatting. And chatting in lower has been the case of choice since early IRC days.
Exactly. I get the feeling that a lot of the grinding reactions to this article in the comments here are from people who never lived in the IRC days, or chatted with their friends on AIM, MSN messenger, etc. Not everything is an email, and young people have found ways to convey subtext in shared digital superset of English, nothing wrong with that.
I used IRC. I always capitalized.
Not everyone follows the "netiquette" though. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Most of these rules rang very true to me at least. For example, capitalizing letters in _informal_ chats does give off a formal tone. This doesn't mean no one does it, but it's definitely a thing.
Most of these rules rang very true to me at least. For example, capitalizing letters in _informal_ chats does give off a formal tone. This doesn't mean no one does it, but it's definitely a thing.
Same. Also same experience for me on ICQ, AIM, and Yahoo.
Gen Z here and I had to check my IMs and it’s always capitalised at the start regardless of if it was done automatically. Although I regularly don’t end messages with a . Unless it’s a long message. I certainly wouldn’t think it’s rude.
The one thing that was completely true though was the smile thing “good job :)” is extremely toxic.
Most of this list is just things people tend to do but wouldn’t notice if you didn’t.
The one thing that was completely true though was the smile thing “good job :)” is extremely toxic.
Most of this list is just things people tend to do but wouldn’t notice if you didn’t.
typing without capitalization can help to create a more informal, somewhat playful tone. same goes for slight misspellings or abbrs instead of spelling out the full word. its just another way to add a small amount of “tone”.
My impression of people who write like that is that they're 9 years old and somehow made it on the big-boy Internet. Mostly because the content of messages written in that fashion gives that impression as well. It's sloppier than the average youtube comment.
What a bizarre take. Who do you work with? The majority of people I’ve worked with of all ages at various companies default to all-lowercase in casual communication, including some of the most intelligent and expressive people. As the other commenter said, it’s perceived as friendlier and more casual. Messages with capitalisation and completely correct grammar in these settings comes off as stilted and corporate.
I've literally never seen this in 15 years of working.
Perceived as friendly and casual by idiots.
That's needlessly aggressive. :-/
I'm really surprised at how defensive some people in this thread are getting regarding this.
It just sounds that way because they used a full stop. /s
How old are the people you communicate with regularly? I work with plenty of late 20 and 30-something professionals and they all intrinsically understand this phenomenon. I also work in tech, with tech savvy individuals, so maybe that has something to do with it.
And quite frankly, it is a pain in the ass to read.
Naturally. But being lazy and not capitalizing first words "just because" is neither of these.
Especially when paired with phrases like "who dat". You're just coming across as doing the barely minimum effort to write. Like people that mumble because they can't be bothered with communicating to you.
Especially when paired with phrases like "who dat". You're just coming across as doing the barely minimum effort to write. Like people that mumble because they can't be bothered with communicating to you.
Not capitalizing on mobile takes extra effort, it is the default.
I'd argue that on a keyboard, it is also showing intention and effort. Everyone is so used to proper capitalization, it comes automatically. I don't have to make an effort to press shift when I press 'I', it's entirely subconscious.
Capitalization is largely unrelated to effort or lazyness. Except for a few extreme cases whose lack of effort is just as visible in the rest of the prose, or the quality of the ideas.
Furthermore, I'd encourage one to spend more effort evaluating the substance of what someone has to say, rather than dismissing their intelligence on account of cultural or stylistic differences. Limiting yourself to a smaller bubble out of disdain seems like self-inflicted imprisonment.
I'd argue that on a keyboard, it is also showing intention and effort. Everyone is so used to proper capitalization, it comes automatically. I don't have to make an effort to press shift when I press 'I', it's entirely subconscious.
Capitalization is largely unrelated to effort or lazyness. Except for a few extreme cases whose lack of effort is just as visible in the rest of the prose, or the quality of the ideas.
Furthermore, I'd encourage one to spend more effort evaluating the substance of what someone has to say, rather than dismissing their intelligence on account of cultural or stylistic differences. Limiting yourself to a smaller bubble out of disdain seems like self-inflicted imprisonment.
capitalization conveys essentially no information in itself, so it would be a waste to continue mindlessly using it when it could be encoded with additional information. Part of what we are seeing with evolving norms is the fat being cut from written english. is our completely redundant capital chatacter set REALLY being used to its fullest extent right now?
An "idiot" does things without knowing or considering why. People choosing to break old capitalization rules to better communicate are a step above those who can't handle that the english they learned in grade school no longer exists.
An "idiot" does things without knowing or considering why. People choosing to break old capitalization rules to better communicate are a step above those who can't handle that the english they learned in grade school no longer exists.
Your message was literally harder to parse without capitalization.
There’s a beautiful irony in claiming people who don’t use capitalisation are idiots/lazy, followed up by complaining that you struggle to parse a sentence without capitalisation.
Your views say far more about your own intelligence/laziness than anyone else’s.
Your views say far more about your own intelligence/laziness than anyone else’s.
> followed up by complaining that you struggle to parse a sentence without capitalisation.
Grammar and punctuation exists for a reason. Try reading a book without any.
Grammar and punctuation exists for a reason. Try reading a book without any.
Why are you moving the goalposts? The comment is specifically referring to capitalisation, not all grammar, and punctuation wasn’t even mentioned.
I have absolutely zero difficulty parsing uncapitalised text. Most of my communication is and has been uncapitalised for the past 20 years. Including in professional context (Slack, git etc). If you’re struggling, it’s because you’re lazy, not because it’s difficult.
I have absolutely zero difficulty parsing uncapitalised text. Most of my communication is and has been uncapitalised for the past 20 years. Including in professional context (Slack, git etc). If you’re struggling, it’s because you’re lazy, not because it’s difficult.
IRC is not a book. It's spoken language in written form, not written language. There's not always full sentences or paragraph structure. Seems like this distinction has escaped you.
You should probably spend more time on the internet, or be a bit more relaxed. Many people uncapitalize for stylistic effects, say to portray how you're uninterested or chill you are, which are very common young people signals for "I'm cool".
Other than that plenty of non idiots forget to capitalize a sentence.
Other than that plenty of non idiots forget to capitalize a sentence.
I spend too much time on the internet. I would strongly argue that using the same style/level of English (punctuation, capitalization, grammar) that a seven year old knows is far more communicative and understandable than using incorrect punctuation and worrying if a full stop means someone is angry.
Perhaps people should just read the content of the message and stop worrying about the set-dressing. "They capitalized, they must be a nerd", "she ended that will a full stop, she must be mad!".
Perhaps people should just read the content of the message and stop worrying about the set-dressing. "They capitalized, they must be a nerd", "she ended that will a full stop, she must be mad!".
> Perhaps people should just read the content of the message and stop worrying about the set-dressing. "They capitalized, they must be a nerd", "she ended that will a full stop, she must be mad!".
Aren't you doing exactly that when you complain how people type their messages?
Aren't you doing exactly that when you complain how people type their messages?
So, people should stop being humans? Are you also offended when you hear that the clothes you wear give off an impression?
> Are you also offended when you hear that the clothes you wear give off an impression?
What am I offended at? Clothes do give off an impression, just like using basic grammar and punctuation.
What am I offended at? Clothes do give off an impression, just like using basic grammar and punctuation.
The “cool” stuff now on the Internet is to avoid the man-child stuff of trying to look cool by copying so-called habits of younger people.
I’d say that copying trend is mostly visible in the early- to middle-millennial cohort who are starting to realize that they’re not the center of the world anymore, a boomer-like reaction on a more reduced scale, if you wish.
I’d say that copying trend is mostly visible in the early- to middle-millennial cohort who are starting to realize that they’re not the center of the world anymore, a boomer-like reaction on a more reduced scale, if you wish.
My defense when I was younger was simply that I didn't even intend to type proper sentences for instant messaging -- I viewed it as a textual representation of speaking[1], not short-form prose.
(These days I aim for proper sentences also in instant messaging, acknowledging the asynchronous nature of it. But if I happen to catch my conversation partner active, I might switch to the more informal, "verbal" style.)
----
[1]: You may think you speak in proper sentences, but try to transcribe an audio recording literally some day. You might be surprised!
(These days I aim for proper sentences also in instant messaging, acknowledging the asynchronous nature of it. But if I happen to catch my conversation partner active, I might switch to the more informal, "verbal" style.)
----
[1]: You may think you speak in proper sentences, but try to transcribe an audio recording literally some day. You might be surprised!
> if someone contacted me without bothering to type a proper sentence I would just think they're an idiot
Sure, but doesn't that just mark you (and me) as older millenials / gen-X?
Sure, but doesn't that just mark you (and me) as older millenials / gen-X?
I was disappointed to see that Sergey Brin (Gen X) didn't capitalise emails (sometimes at least).
See the first email in this article:
https://www.businessinsider.in/emails-from-googles-eric-schm...
See the first email in this article:
https://www.businessinsider.in/emails-from-googles-eric-schm...
Isn’t this just a kind of power play? I’m so rich/powerful I don’t have to use correct punctuation? Who’s going to correct him?
I would consider that lazy and unprofessional. If a new hire communicated to the C-levels like that they would probably be scolded, but no one is going to scold the CEO.
Wasn't the whole Blackberry shtick about having a full qwerty keyboard so the business folk could send messages that didn't look like T9 gibberish?
Wasn't the whole Blackberry shtick about having a full qwerty keyboard so the business folk could send messages that didn't look like T9 gibberish?
I recently noticed my habit of starting a message or note with a lower case letter. What I found amusing (and what led to me thinking about it) was that I always capitalise the start of the second and subsequent sentences. Also of note: I always capitalise the first person pronoun and often omit the ultimate punctuation
Yeah I agree
Those examples just sound real lazy Gen Z writing
The other ones I kinda agree (with measure), but this one is awful. Then they ask why "is it so hard to get a job". Job market issues aside, don't come across as a dork.
Those examples just sound real lazy Gen Z writing
The other ones I kinda agree (with measure), but this one is awful. Then they ask why "is it so hard to get a job". Job market issues aside, don't come across as a dork.
> Job market issues aside, don't come across as a dork.
Not disagreeing with you, but I think what constitutes as being a dork depends heavily on the situation (workplace culture, etc.). Writing like a Gen Z doesn't necessarily make one a dork.
I'd argue that the reverse is true: not writing like everyone else (i.e. completely ignoring the so called "Gen Z Netiquette") makes you a dork for being inept at adapting to the new social norm.
Not disagreeing with you, but I think what constitutes as being a dork depends heavily on the situation (workplace culture, etc.). Writing like a Gen Z doesn't necessarily make one a dork.
I'd argue that the reverse is true: not writing like everyone else (i.e. completely ignoring the so called "Gen Z Netiquette") makes you a dork for being inept at adapting to the new social norm.
> Writing like a Gen Z doesn't necessarily make one a dork.
If a Gen Z can't write basic sentences with basic grammar and punctuation then that shows poor English skills. In the work place setting, as the OP was talking about, this is really important. It also shows lack of awareness or respect or empathy because they can't communicate to their intended audience (colleagues/interviewer) using language appropriate for the setting (a professional work place).
If a Gen Z can't write basic sentences with basic grammar and punctuation then that shows poor English skills. In the work place setting, as the OP was talking about, this is really important. It also shows lack of awareness or respect or empathy because they can't communicate to their intended audience (colleagues/interviewer) using language appropriate for the setting (a professional work place).
> completely ignoring the so called "Gen Z Netiquette
True. But I don't do that (quite the opposite, but I don't write like that here, because again, reading the room is important) ;)
True. But I don't do that (quite the opposite, but I don't write like that here, because again, reading the room is important) ;)
I used to feel the same but I now had to teach two otherwise intelligent juniors that work communication is formal and sentences do start with a capital. So apparently it got lost at some point.
Both my Marroccan employees didn’t capitalize sentences, whereas they capitalized nouns, even in customer-facing apps. Does this concept exist in Arabic languages?
Arabic writing doesn't have capitalization. What language were they writing? It sounds like they noticed that proper nouns were capitalized but maybe felt the other rules about capitalization were too much bother. I even get confused sometimes about capitalizing in titles.
Arabic doesn't have capital letters.
Based. Letter casing a mistake. We only have it because Charlemagne's scribes decided to use a different font for their Latin, and then it stuck, leaving us with double the character set, input handling bugs to fix, and shit to argue about.
90s/00s IRC is the reason for me. To this day, I don't capitalize regular words when chatting with a friend (no matter the platform or device).
What about chatting or just shooting off one off messages? Isn't shift an overkill then?
Yeah, I think I should say that when a longer conversation is _ongoing_ then I think dropping capital letters and full stops is more natural as the conversation flows.
If I am trying to communicate something or it's the first message then it's always capitalized with the usual punctuation. Maybe even a semi-colon if I am feeling listy.
If I am trying to communicate something or it's the first message then it's always capitalized with the usual punctuation. Maybe even a semi-colon if I am feeling listy.
> I would just think they're an idiot.
Wait till you encounter would of should of could of -.-
Wait till you encounter would of should of could of -.-
i've just taken the most basic of looks over my DMs in various platforms and i'd put it at 50% starting with caps, and some of those messages are off people i'd consider pretty clever
Yes, the idea that capitalisation correlates with intelligence is absurd. OP has a serious superiority complex.
Same with full stops for me.
lol
Your username has improper capitalization.
i never capitalize even in biz convos
it’s a bit of a power move but also makes it easier to establish relationships
it’s a bit of a power move but also makes it easier to establish relationships
Every time some new generation starts to create its own identity, some proportion of the previous dominant generation reacts defensively by attacking it with wilful ignorance and disdain. It's a tragic way to age. Worse than a ponytail and a motorbike.
If you find yourself finding smug, try looking at an old Reddit rage comic/4chan greentext/usenet flamewar, depending on your age.
If you find yourself finding smug, try looking at an old Reddit rage comic/4chan greentext/usenet flamewar, depending on your age.
Conversely, don’t expect the previous generations to quit using capitalization and periods.
Your point is well taken, and thankfully I have neither a pony tail nor a motorcycle, but I am quite likely to observe 40 years of habit and driving in the guardrails of the language.
Or, ya know, don’t read shit into the message that isn’t there.
Your point is well taken, and thankfully I have neither a pony tail nor a motorcycle, but I am quite likely to observe 40 years of habit and driving in the guardrails of the language.
Or, ya know, don’t read shit into the message that isn’t there.
Like Albus Dumbledore says in Harry Potter: If you are a young person it cannot be expected from you that you understand how old people feel. But if you are an old person and don't understand how young people feel, you are a fool, because you have been young once.
unfortunately every time a new generation starts to create its own identity they age to either throw away the baby with the bathwater or to repeat the same.mistakes of the previous generations.
My generation did it too.
Social progress is not linear growth but sinusoidal.
My generation did it too.
Social progress is not linear growth but sinusoidal.
A point well worth making - every generation assumes it’s more progressive than the last, but that’s not always the case.
There's a lot more to gen z than was on this blog post, but what is there seems like a recipe for creating personality disorders.
pls elaborate. The blog post was very informative for me. Learning even more would be nice. If it's good I'll submit it to the blogpost's author as he asked for at the end of the blogpost.
Not using any punctuation and relying on pictograms instead of definable words, and then getting hung up on who (and how many people) respond to a social post, and in what way and with what timing?
Holy shit, no wonder they're all so perpetually miserable.
Holy shit, no wonder they're all so perpetually miserable.
>The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
> - Socrates, 400 B.C.
>Every time some new generation starts to create its own identity, some proportion of the previous dominant generation reacts defensively by attacking it with wilful ignorance and disdain. It's a tragic way to age. Worse than a diadema and a peneia.
> - the youth, 400 B.C.
---
>The children now love the internet; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love reddit in place of blog posts. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer use facebook while their uncles still do. They contradict their parents, text before company, gobble up memes on TikTok, twerk, and tyrannize their teachers.
> - boomers, 2023 A.D.
>Every time some new generation starts to create its own identity, some proportion of the previous dominant generation reacts defensively by attacking it with wilful ignorance and disdain. It's a tragic way to age. Worse than a ponytail and a motorbike.
> - devnullbrain, 2023 A.D.
> - Socrates, 400 B.C.
>Every time some new generation starts to create its own identity, some proportion of the previous dominant generation reacts defensively by attacking it with wilful ignorance and disdain. It's a tragic way to age. Worse than a diadema and a peneia.
> - the youth, 400 B.C.
---
>The children now love the internet; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love reddit in place of blog posts. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer use facebook while their uncles still do. They contradict their parents, text before company, gobble up memes on TikTok, twerk, and tyrannize their teachers.
> - boomers, 2023 A.D.
>Every time some new generation starts to create its own identity, some proportion of the previous dominant generation reacts defensively by attacking it with wilful ignorance and disdain. It's a tragic way to age. Worse than a ponytail and a motorbike.
> - devnullbrain, 2023 A.D.
I am somewhat worried that this kind of rebuttal may "flush away" even actual pathological developments.
Current youth seems to suffer from many more mental disorders (such as depression) than before. Share of people who had sex by their early twenties dropped significantly, which may be a consequence of having less intimacy and more solitude. Non-academically-talented young men seem to be less successful than ever before, to the degree that even liberal coastal media stopped making fun of them and started describing the situation as dire and in need of addressing.
Such problems may be fake (percepted, but not real), but they can, in fact, be real. We are not doing ourselves or anyone else a favor by invoking glib, thought-terminating clichés about the old eternally grumbling about the young.
There must be a middle way between the "get off my lawn" and "this is an ancient trope that only deserves mocking" attitudes.
Current youth seems to suffer from many more mental disorders (such as depression) than before. Share of people who had sex by their early twenties dropped significantly, which may be a consequence of having less intimacy and more solitude. Non-academically-talented young men seem to be less successful than ever before, to the degree that even liberal coastal media stopped making fun of them and started describing the situation as dire and in need of addressing.
Such problems may be fake (percepted, but not real), but they can, in fact, be real. We are not doing ourselves or anyone else a favor by invoking glib, thought-terminating clichés about the old eternally grumbling about the young.
There must be a middle way between the "get off my lawn" and "this is an ancient trope that only deserves mocking" attitudes.
> Share of people who had sex by their early twenties dropped significantly, which may be a consequence of having less intimacy and more solitude
This meme feels wildly ironic to me, given I grew up in an environment of Old People Upset That Teenagers These Days Are Having Too Much Sex.
This meme feels wildly ironic to me, given I grew up in an environment of Old People Upset That Teenagers These Days Are Having Too Much Sex.
FYI, that is not a Socrates quote.
> It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907. Freeman did not claim that the passage under analysis was a direct quotation of anyone; instead, he was presenting his own summary of the complaints directed against young people in ancient times.
* https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave/
> It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907. Freeman did not claim that the passage under analysis was a direct quotation of anyone; instead, he was presenting his own summary of the complaints directed against young people in ancient times.
* https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehave/
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times, they are a-changin-
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times, they are a-changin-
So many of this rules feel like coddling other person's anxiety through obligatory reciprocation.
Social media platforms approve.
Social media platforms approve.
Coddling other people's [issues] just sounds like any other social norms to me.
No that's not a recipe for healthy relationships. A healthy relationship is where you excuse others accidental faux pas in the interest of maintaining a good relationship. Only if they become highly offensive do you consider breaking off relations. That's how social norms work.
I'm not talking about faux pas. I'm talking about the things you're expected to do, or not do, for the sake of managing the emotions of others.
People don't normally manage the emotions of others (other than maybe a hysterical girlfriend). At least it's not something I've ever done.
That’s a great way of putting it
An entire generation has been trained by Mark Zuckerberg to boost engagement on his properties
An entire generation has been trained by Mark Zuckerberg to boost engagement on his properties
Meanwhile I've never encountered these "netiquettes" whoever I'm talking to. Perhaps every generation isn't a monoculture.
Yep, these kind of articles are nonsense clickbait.
The idea that there’s a special GenZ rule about full stops is bullshit. It’s all just tone and context. If you’re texting someone who evidently likes ending every message with a full stop, you obviously aren’t going to assume every single message is insulting (unless you’re an idiot or very paranoid). If you’re texting with someone who never uses full stops but then they suddenly use one at the end of a message and the message is kind of abrupt (like if it’s refusing a request) then it might feel kind of ‘firm’. This is something any intelligent/sensitive person, at any age, could pick up on, or not. It’s nothing to do with GenZ. It’s been this way since the start of internet messaging. It’s just recently become a dumb meme that fills column inches in newspapers because it creates a confused talking point where boomers etc are supposed to be aghast that they’ve been accidentally offending GenZ people by using full stops. It’s just dumb, dumb, dumb.
The idea that there’s a special GenZ rule about full stops is bullshit. It’s all just tone and context. If you’re texting someone who evidently likes ending every message with a full stop, you obviously aren’t going to assume every single message is insulting (unless you’re an idiot or very paranoid). If you’re texting with someone who never uses full stops but then they suddenly use one at the end of a message and the message is kind of abrupt (like if it’s refusing a request) then it might feel kind of ‘firm’. This is something any intelligent/sensitive person, at any age, could pick up on, or not. It’s nothing to do with GenZ. It’s been this way since the start of internet messaging. It’s just recently become a dumb meme that fills column inches in newspapers because it creates a confused talking point where boomers etc are supposed to be aghast that they’ve been accidentally offending GenZ people by using full stops. It’s just dumb, dumb, dumb.
Some of these make a lot of sense, not just as a Gen Z thing, but overall adopting them shouldn't annoy anyone. I will continue ending my sentences with a full stop but maybe I'll start picking more expressive emojis than :)
[deleted]
Go full boomer and send :-)
:o)
Ö
Beautiful, and all this time I thought HN didn't render emojis
That's an uppercase O with an umlaut on it. I type this with 'option u shift o'.
For example - https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
For example - https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
Sahara (arabiska: الصحراء الكبرى, aṣ-ṣaḥrā' al-kubra, "Den största öknen")
in the German speaking sphere we used to use ggg to mean laughing, and the more g-s, the harder you were laughing
It comes from grins translating to “grinning”. My generation grew up with ICQ which had smileys. This thing with writing g was more common in online communities like online games and chatrooms and was more an internet subculture thing than mainstream knowledge along my peers.
Huh, never noticed that (British living in Berlin), but good to know. Thanks for the info! :)
Very tangentially related: Instagram just started to roll out their new "status" line that shows up over your photo in everybody's message lists.
It's like if MSN Messenger status were back again, and young people that I know are loving it :)
I guess some ideas are fun no matter the generation. There are also older people who got to experience MSN Messenger, and are asking when the music status updates will come too!
Meta/Fb just brought a decades-old staple into their app, and I find that amusing.
It's like if MSN Messenger status were back again, and young people that I know are loving it :)
I guess some ideas are fun no matter the generation. There are also older people who got to experience MSN Messenger, and are asking when the music status updates will come too!
Meta/Fb just brought a decades-old staple into their app, and I find that amusing.
Very american reaction: reading too much into text messages and expecting superficial over friendliness.
That's not a gen z thing. That's an entitle US social media projection.
That's not a gen z thing. That's an entitle US social media projection.
This is as accurate in Europe, and much of it has been for the last 15 years at the very least.
This deserves a new RFC - the original is outdated: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1855
I think emojis are an objectively better communication tool. You can pack more emotion and nuances in emojis with much fewer characters. Yet I hate when I see them... Probably because I'm getting older and becoming less tolerant of young culture. Sad
Edit: I added a few emojis in the original message, but it seems automatically removed—another nice thing for hacker news.
Edit: I added a few emojis in the original message, but it seems automatically removed—another nice thing for hacker news.
Not really, they mean totally different things to different generations etc. and to add to that depending on your app and system they render completely different as to change the entire meaning.
And that is before taking into account totally arbitrary shortcuts and meanings are introduced in various communities.
As a communication tool within a tight group, sure. But outside that emojis are pretty darn bad. Unless you stick to the subset that pretty closely maps to ascii smileys.
And that is before taking into account totally arbitrary shortcuts and meanings are introduced in various communities.
As a communication tool within a tight group, sure. But outside that emojis are pretty darn bad. Unless you stick to the subset that pretty closely maps to ascii smileys.
I’ve seen emojis completely banned on some codes of conduct because of potential offence. The OK hand symbol, the basic smiley face, or using the white skin tone on Slack could all be seen as hostile by some groups of people. Yeah it’s a bit crazy but this is one of the necessities of inviting lots of diverse groups of different ages and backgrounds to work together - there’s less of a base of shared communication and more risk of angering others, so communication must become more formal and defensive (at least until people establish good will with each other).
I was expecting a list of unrelatable norms, but I think these apply for most people who regularly use digital means of communication, regardless of age.
Fortunately, most Zoomers are very good at code switching. For example, I had a conversation with my daughter about laughing emoji vs. skull and crossbones ("ded") because I was seeing tons of online discourse about it. Her response was "It's not a big deal to me or any of my friends because we know you're old." Well, ouch, but also OK. So I still text in complete sentences etc. and she doesn't and it's all fine.
Prognostication over the presence or absence of a single punctuation point seems like a problem for the reader. It assumes the author has the same background and understanding of these fine points that the reader does. This is probably an unreasonable assumption. I used to look for these shibboleths and hidden implications from minor stylistic issues. It's a bad habit. It often does reveal much. But it also tends to apophenia - seeing patterns that are not there. And it's so fuzzy that preconception tends to dominate. (You only worry about the abruptness of 'K.' if you're already worried about what they think of you.)
As a writer, try to follow the style your audience expects. That advice applies to informal personal communications. But don't engage heavily in this practice as a reader. It can be counterproductive to communication.
As a writer, try to follow the style your audience expects. That advice applies to informal personal communications. But don't engage heavily in this practice as a reader. It can be counterproductive to communication.
Might be a bit of a boomer opinion but the thing that kept coming up for me as I was reading that was “damn, that’s a lot of social insecurity built in by default to almost every interaction and conversation”.
Not all of it obviously and I don’t even think that’s strictly a Gen Z thing specifically (much of it could have been written about my mother for example) but JFC it sounds emotionally draining way to live your life.
Not all of it obviously and I don’t even think that’s strictly a Gen Z thing specifically (much of it could have been written about my mother for example) but JFC it sounds emotionally draining way to live your life.
I find this often meeting 'zoomers' in person. In contrast to the glued to the phone cliche, they're often enormously attentive, in an almost pained way. Incredibly careful in how they speak and - in accordance with the 'triggered' cliche - very easily upset or offended. Not only by transgression of their numerous linguistic prohibitions, but even misunderstandings about potential transgressions. The simplest way to explain it is they seem to assume bad faith, that things were ill intended, and that the worst interpretation something someone says is accurate. They seem to have grown up at a time of rapidly changing speech and behavioural codes, immersed in a culture that has harsh instantaneous judgement for their transgression. It seems like an extremely fraught and anxiety inducing way of being.
I'd like to propose look at it an alternative way; language has changed to be much more focused on intent, interpretation, and cognizant of your conversational partners.
I work with a fairly large and diverse IT team with age ranges from 22 to 60+; a lot of this involves disagreements as is natural with any conversations with a large group of people.
Discussions with the younger demographic are far more productive and faster as they're quite specific in their statements and when there is a disagreement, they put it out there fairly openly, explaining intent and feelings, and when I reciprocate, we get to a faster understanding of one another and any potential misunderstandings we might have had, view points we hadn't considered, or parts that aren't clear for us. The initial conversations take a bit longer, but ultimately end up with all parties understanding the situation well. It's quite healthy I think.
With the older age group, I definitely know _when_ they're angry or upset about something or when they disagree with me, but I rarely know _why_. Trying to slow down the conversation and have the same "help me understand what you're thinking/feeling so we can better communicate" often is not received well, and while the conversations are more direct initially, they last far longer and result in more tirades, walls of text, and dozens of arguments with loose or no connection to the topic at hand.
I don't see the younger persons as being sensitive, I see them as being specific; I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state, and embracing this by participating in the same way is very freeing. I can have what might be considered difficult discussions (corrections, disciplinary actions, etc) and understand that while likely the conversation partner is not happy, they feel understood, I've presented my point of view, and when presented with new information, all sides have been very receptive.
With my older colleagues, the same sensitivity and emotions are there, but I'm far less aware of it even if I specifically take actions to show I want to understand more.
There is definitely a culture clash, and I think that the reactions of "snow flakes" and "triggered" are not accurate, and it's more about two persons separated by a common language failing to communicate. Given how well conversations with my younger colleagues go, I'm more inclined to prefer this model.
I work with a fairly large and diverse IT team with age ranges from 22 to 60+; a lot of this involves disagreements as is natural with any conversations with a large group of people.
Discussions with the younger demographic are far more productive and faster as they're quite specific in their statements and when there is a disagreement, they put it out there fairly openly, explaining intent and feelings, and when I reciprocate, we get to a faster understanding of one another and any potential misunderstandings we might have had, view points we hadn't considered, or parts that aren't clear for us. The initial conversations take a bit longer, but ultimately end up with all parties understanding the situation well. It's quite healthy I think.
With the older age group, I definitely know _when_ they're angry or upset about something or when they disagree with me, but I rarely know _why_. Trying to slow down the conversation and have the same "help me understand what you're thinking/feeling so we can better communicate" often is not received well, and while the conversations are more direct initially, they last far longer and result in more tirades, walls of text, and dozens of arguments with loose or no connection to the topic at hand.
I don't see the younger persons as being sensitive, I see them as being specific; I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state, and embracing this by participating in the same way is very freeing. I can have what might be considered difficult discussions (corrections, disciplinary actions, etc) and understand that while likely the conversation partner is not happy, they feel understood, I've presented my point of view, and when presented with new information, all sides have been very receptive.
With my older colleagues, the same sensitivity and emotions are there, but I'm far less aware of it even if I specifically take actions to show I want to understand more.
There is definitely a culture clash, and I think that the reactions of "snow flakes" and "triggered" are not accurate, and it's more about two persons separated by a common language failing to communicate. Given how well conversations with my younger colleagues go, I'm more inclined to prefer this model.
Interesting, this deeply conflicts with my own experience in work / voluntary organisations. I wonder if the frustrations you're experiencing with older colleagues could also be accounted for by their having to navigate an environment of high and expanding sensitivity?
"I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state" My alternate construal is that they're convinced their interpretation is accurate / important. i.e.: That their feelings in any given situation have as much or more weight as what is objectively true.
"I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state" My alternate construal is that they're convinced their interpretation is accurate / important. i.e.: That their feelings in any given situation have as much or more weight as what is objectively true.
> the worst interpretation something someone says is accurate
Well, to give just a few examples:
* The worst interpretation of a sentence said by politicians is usually accurate
* In contractual law, the worst interpretation of a clause is the one you need to prepare for
* In advertising, the absolute worst interpretation of a phrase is usually accurate
* If you get a letter of recommendation, the worst interpretation is the intended one
So you adapt to this world.
Well, to give just a few examples:
* The worst interpretation of a sentence said by politicians is usually accurate
* In contractual law, the worst interpretation of a clause is the one you need to prepare for
* In advertising, the absolute worst interpretation of a phrase is usually accurate
* If you get a letter of recommendation, the worst interpretation is the intended one
So you adapt to this world.
All of those things have been true at least since the dawn of mass media in the early 20th century. I'm speaking about intergenerational change, and interpersonal interactions. Perhaps the difference is that we all now exist as though on the public stage. Either way, perceiving everyday interactions in that way is dispiriting and closes you off from people with different experiences and perspectives. It can make your everyday life - rather than just your online existence - a rigid, carefully managed echo-chamber.
> Perhaps the difference is that we all now exist as though on the public stage
Ah yeah, true! So basically now we're kind of forced into reading everything, even when it's private, as some kind of press release.
Ah yeah, true! So basically now we're kind of forced into reading everything, even when it's private, as some kind of press release.
Also code. The worst possible thing that can happen in code will be the thing that inevitably happens and with much more frequency than anticipated.
> social insecurity
Actually, that might be a major alert. Yes, young people feel very insecure nowadays, and I bet much more than dork-me when I was 17. Spending time online doesn’t help feeling socially apt, and it builds up as an entire part of that generation identifying as socially afraid.
Actually, that might be a major alert. Yes, young people feel very insecure nowadays, and I bet much more than dork-me when I was 17. Spending time online doesn’t help feeling socially apt, and it builds up as an entire part of that generation identifying as socially afraid.
Well, it's the world silicon valley built for everyone. And gen z, rightly or wrongly got to grow up with it.
A world of social interactions as defined by people with some of the worst social skills of my generation. Looking at you Zuckerberg.
But yeah, I can see how that’s clearly a recipe for disaster.
But yeah, I can see how that’s clearly a recipe for disaster.
When a lot of your life happens online, and communication channels dedicate a lot more bandwidth to convey feelings, it's no surprise you can also hurt people when you send certain cues. And it's okay to feel insecure if someone makes you feel that way.
But don't worry, people are generally able to adapt to the other person, knowing that a boomer (or non-lit gen-z) might be oblivious to some rules, and is not out to scare you with a plain smiley ;)
But don't worry, people are generally able to adapt to the other person, knowing that a boomer (or non-lit gen-z) might be oblivious to some rules, and is not out to scare you with a plain smiley ;)
Yeah this actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. In the absence of all these non-verbal cues that exist IRL it creates a huge vacuum for insecurities to potentially fill.
If most of your interactions are online then yeah, I guess you’re going to have to be a lot more explicit about showing positive reinforcement all the time.
If most of your interactions are online then yeah, I guess you’re going to have to be a lot more explicit about showing positive reinforcement all the time.
> damn, that’s a lot of social insecurity built in by default to almost every interaction and conversation
Hah, I think that's just part of being a young adult, isn't it?
Hah, I think that's just part of being a young adult, isn't it?
Imagine trying to date a gen z with this much anxiety. And when you suggest preferring to meet in person instead of partaking in this absurd communication style, they get even more anxious and suspicious.
If you don't want to text, send wrong cues when you do, and want to move quickly to meet in person, hell yeah this will look suspicious. Millenial here.
Phone addicted millennial, I guess? If we're making assumptions about each other...
That's fine, I didn't want to date those people. You know why? People are really good at portraying themselves as a totally different character over text. It's fake. It's all fake. It's harder to be fake in person.
I'm engaged now to someone who isn't triggered by an omitted period, isn't addicted to his phone, isn't obsessed with social media. Totally on my level. It's awesome. (Not a gen Z, obviously). Post-covid dating was a total shitshow.
That's fine, I didn't want to date those people. You know why? People are really good at portraying themselves as a totally different character over text. It's fake. It's all fake. It's harder to be fake in person.
I'm engaged now to someone who isn't triggered by an omitted period, isn't addicted to his phone, isn't obsessed with social media. Totally on my level. It's awesome. (Not a gen Z, obviously). Post-covid dating was a total shitshow.
Even though I used a generic you, I didn't make assumptions about your person, only gave feedback on that communication style, which would raise a red flag even in my non-z generation. The rest of your post... I honestly don't know what's happening there.
reading this comment, it does come across as inattentive, unable to pick up on social cues and subtleties (or take them seriously, when they're laid out like that), and inconsiderate, all of which is very boomer
just think back to your own ways of communication within your circles of people, that would be 'subtle' like that, and just, realize that 'this is just other people coming up with their own things'. like, even bro culture is chock full of social cues, subtleties, unspoken things, 'if they do this, you do that', and so on. it's truly not new in any sense, especially not in regards to what you call "insecurity". and 'sensitivity' is not a bad thing by any means. especially around and with your closest people.
just think back to your own ways of communication within your circles of people, that would be 'subtle' like that, and just, realize that 'this is just other people coming up with their own things'. like, even bro culture is chock full of social cues, subtleties, unspoken things, 'if they do this, you do that', and so on. it's truly not new in any sense, especially not in regards to what you call "insecurity". and 'sensitivity' is not a bad thing by any means. especially around and with your closest people.
Is this written sarcastically?
Those are all unironically true.
But what does it mean when the third boyfriend of my first boyfriend whose first boyfriend I was keeps watching my Instagram stories but not following me, considering my first boyfriend blocked me everywhere? Are they sitting there together laughing at my stories? Does he watch me out of low self confidence? He must know I know he is watching them. Should I write him? That kind of would violate my rule to accept my first ex desire not to communicate with me ever again.
Young people / social media communication and whole new categories of communication channels / signs/cues like getting your story watched is quite complex!
But what does it mean when the third boyfriend of my first boyfriend whose first boyfriend I was keeps watching my Instagram stories but not following me, considering my first boyfriend blocked me everywhere? Are they sitting there together laughing at my stories? Does he watch me out of low self confidence? He must know I know he is watching them. Should I write him? That kind of would violate my rule to accept my first ex desire not to communicate with me ever again.
Young people / social media communication and whole new categories of communication channels / signs/cues like getting your story watched is quite complex!
I will never use any kind of messaging platform that insists on "Read receipts", or even worse, the typing breadcrumbs. Fuck that shit, I'll reply when I'm good and ready, that's a big part of what makes it fun. You never know when you're going to get a sweet little squirt of dopamine == unexpected or surprise reply
Everyone just reads them in the notifications so they don’t mark as read
Can confirm. I have iMessage read receipts turned on. New text comes in, read it in the notification and don't open it until I'm ready to respond.
Except for privacy reasons, I don't show the message body in notifications.
The hack around this is to send an image which can’t be previewed
I consider everyone with read receipts off on WhatsApp someone with mental issues: They crave control and deprive me of context/cues/metadata that already became mainstream. It‘s just like someone only talking to you while wearing a mask that hides their face.
I read messages when they come in because they might be urgent and it does not take very much effort to read a message. Most messages are not urgent, however, and the response (or worse, ensuing real-time conversation) often does require some effort. So if I happen to be engaged in something I'll frequently choose to postpone responding until a more convenient time.
In the past people have taken advantage of this "mainstream" metadata to interrupt me further with increasingly desperate follow-ups and/or to jump to cynical assumptions about their value to me as a person unnecessarily jeopardizing our relationship.
So like GP I turn this functionality off and refuse to use platforms that don't allow it to be disabled. This "feature" is not required for good faith conversations between non-adversarial parties.
Do I crave control over your context? Only insomuch as I refuse to be at the 24/7 beck and call of anyone with a phone. If you want to have a real-time discussion with me you can either have the good fortune to have contacted me at a moment in which I was not otherwise occupied or you can schedule a time with me in advance.
In the past people have taken advantage of this "mainstream" metadata to interrupt me further with increasingly desperate follow-ups and/or to jump to cynical assumptions about their value to me as a person unnecessarily jeopardizing our relationship.
So like GP I turn this functionality off and refuse to use platforms that don't allow it to be disabled. This "feature" is not required for good faith conversations between non-adversarial parties.
Do I crave control over your context? Only insomuch as I refuse to be at the 24/7 beck and call of anyone with a phone. If you want to have a real-time discussion with me you can either have the good fortune to have contacted me at a moment in which I was not otherwise occupied or you can schedule a time with me in advance.
They're in for a rude awakening when they enter the work world.
(ノ゜Д゜)ノ ⌒┻━┻
No. It’s written to be funny but I can vouch that these rules, such as they are, are all more or less correct.
I asked my daughter and her friend who was with her (both 20) if there's a difference between "I'll be home" and "I'll be home." They confirmed, and said the latter is much more serious. And this is in The Netherlands.
I proposed that they were (sort of) pronouncing the punctuation, as in "I'll be home. Period.", and it seems to sound that way. Odd, but it seems wide-spread.
I proposed that they were (sort of) pronouncing the punctuation, as in "I'll be home. Period.", and it seems to sound that way. Odd, but it seems wide-spread.
if my girlfriend texted me
>I'll be home.
I'd assume she was breaking up with me
> pronouncing the punctuation
I do not think you can think of it that way. It's said that the subtleties of spoken language are lost in text, but in this case, the subtleties of the written word are lost in spoken language.
I do not think you can think of it that way. It's said that the subtleties of spoken language are lost in text, but in this case, the subtleties of the written word are lost in spoken language.
i'm millenial/gen-x cusp, and they all seemed pretty reasonable and intuitive to me, EXCEPT number 3 -- a good-old fashioned simple smiley is passive-aggressive and cold to gen-z??
It's sort of contextual, I think most of the article starts from things that are true in some way, but exaggerates them and takes it a bit too far.
The plain smiley can sound like sarcasm/irony or a passive-agressive tone, because it looks a little lifeless compared to modern emojis that are more expressive. It used to be the most expressive you could be, but now it's the most plain you can be. The least amount of smiling you could be smiling. It can look like a fake smile as a result.
The plain smiley can sound like sarcasm/irony or a passive-agressive tone, because it looks a little lifeless compared to modern emojis that are more expressive. It used to be the most expressive you could be, but now it's the most plain you can be. The least amount of smiling you could be smiling. It can look like a fake smile as a result.
Serious take: The new generation rejects what was acceptable to the previous generation as part of the process of developing their own identity.
Humorous take: Sensitive snowflakes gonna sensitive.
Humorous take: Sensitive snowflakes gonna sensitive.
Here's an attempt to demonstrate how :) can come off as very toxic or passive aggressive:
---
Serious take: The new generation rejects what was acceptable to the previous generation as part of the process of developing their own identity :)
Humorous take: Sensitive snowflakes gonna sensitive :)
---
Serious take: The new generation rejects what was acceptable to the previous generation as part of the process of developing their own identity :)
Humorous take: Sensitive snowflakes gonna sensitive :)
Exactly, it's old fashioned - if you've only ever used a phone keyboard with a dedicated emoji keyboard button, it's conspicuous. This doesn't apply to the emoji version but that has the bad luck of unfortunate, cold representations in most emoji fonts.
Same age cohort as you, I’ll continue genuinely using “:)” no matter what.
It depends on the context, but the standard smiley face has effectively been replaced with the following two:
https://emojipedia.org/smiling-face/
https://emojipedia.org/smiling-face-with-smiling-eyes/
https://emojipedia.org/smiling-face/
https://emojipedia.org/smiling-face-with-smiling-eyes/
This explains it a bit: https://alicecorner.medium.com/the-slightly-smiling-emoji-is... (especially the Spongebob part)
[deleted]
That was the most real one imo. The :) is super toxic. Least aggressive would be ^^ or :3
I have seen :) and felt it as toxic. I also don't believe it is inherently toxic.
The surprising part to me is that I have an old pamphlet from Hayes that has a catalog of emoticons as we used to refer to them. This means that :) has changed its meaning in a generation or so... which I never considered that "pictograms" could do that.
It could also be that the context sets the tone and the emoticons are nuanced.
The surprising part to me is that I have an old pamphlet from Hayes that has a catalog of emoticons as we used to refer to them. This means that :) has changed its meaning in a generation or so... which I never considered that "pictograms" could do that.
It could also be that the context sets the tone and the emoticons are nuanced.
No zoomer I talk to has any idea what ^^ means, it seems like a millennial giveaway. I haven't tested :3, but in general it seems to me they're barely aware of plain-text emotes.
I often wonder if please is passive aggressive and I’m gen-x
There’s also some etiquette about what emojis are boomer (thus u should never use them).
I have a much younger cousin who happens to be Gen Z and he said that it's mostly exaggerated but saw some elements of it when talking to girls. He's a freshman in university at the moment.
They're correct but it's written in kind of a cringe Buzzfeed way
For sarcasm sentences can be suffixed with /s
I refuse to do this on Reddit. I long for a simpler time when it was literally impossible to tell who was being sarcastic and who is a genuine crazy person.
I refuse to do this on Reddit. I long for a simpler time when it was literally impossible to tell who was being sarcastic and who is a genuine crazy person.
I don't think so. I found myself lol'ing (as in actually laughing out loud) at the accuracy.
Honestly, I can’t keep up with so much implied context about everything I type. It sounds exhausting.
gen z here - stop using so many emojis; they make you seem fake. maybe 1/4th of your messages should contain emojis if you legitimately feel the need to "mask" as gen z for some reason.
To be fair given the context of snapchatting, tiktoking, voicemessaging, online dating [... stories, filters ...] written text is simply demoted to snippets of additional information/expressiveness.
Sentence-s, well structured sentences (with it punctuation marks and capitalization) are in this context like evoking latin phrases let alone a fortiori whole paragraphs.
If one takes chatgpt into the equation writing essays will be as calculating without a calculator for the next adolescent generation and used mainly as intimidation given the current education system - or preferably a playful approach at pattern recognition emerging from formal rules conveying abstract concepts.
Sentence-s, well structured sentences (with it punctuation marks and capitalization) are in this context like evoking latin phrases let alone a fortiori whole paragraphs.
If one takes chatgpt into the equation writing essays will be as calculating without a calculator for the next adolescent generation and used mainly as intimidation given the current education system - or preferably a playful approach at pattern recognition emerging from formal rules conveying abstract concepts.
> Your friend texts you "I am happy for you." --> Highly likely they hate you and even wish the worst for you, but they have to text anyway cuz every friend in the group is doing so.
People must really think I hate them lol.
People must really think I hate them lol.
Am I on 2018 Buzzfeed right now? Refrain from upvoting dumb shit people.
You should at least skim it, it's funny :)
I think it's implicit, but in case anyone didn't pick up on this, these tips are HIGHLY group dependent, which is roughly equivalent to being dependent on what app you use.
For me, one of the biggest indicators that someone is from a generation older than my own is seeing two spaces after a period.
Or if their email font is something other than default. Comic Sans means they’re 55~60 and up.
It only just occurred to me that I finish every sentence with a . While no one I'm talking to does.
Irrelevant to the article, but it is a part of it, which made me think:
"Disclaimer: theoretically speaking I’m a genZ. But I could never identify myself as one because I never quite know about most of the rules until recently. This is a gen Z edition, because gen Z practices these rules a lot, not because I’m one."
I don't think the generation you're born in is something you identify with. Nor do I think that people "practice" the generational rules, as these "rules" are the result of their behaviour not something that one would practice/actively strive to do. As such, no matter what you do, that actions and behaviour is of the generation that you're born into.
Example: You don't choose your parents, nor do you choose your siblings.
If most of your siblings engage in daily running but you don't, saying that you don't identify as a child of you parents because children of your parents engage in daily running, is a bit of a backwards to the objective truth. (I can't think of a better way to put it into words, but I hope that fellow thinkers can see the logic that I'm trying to explain.)
Maybe something like this: It is illogical to define yourself by the actions of others.
Or:
The actions of others, front define who you are.
tl;dr: You are GenZ not because of what you do. But because what you do, is done by GenZ.
Edit: You are not a man because you do manly things. Things are manly because a man does them.
"Disclaimer: theoretically speaking I’m a genZ. But I could never identify myself as one because I never quite know about most of the rules until recently. This is a gen Z edition, because gen Z practices these rules a lot, not because I’m one."
I don't think the generation you're born in is something you identify with. Nor do I think that people "practice" the generational rules, as these "rules" are the result of their behaviour not something that one would practice/actively strive to do. As such, no matter what you do, that actions and behaviour is of the generation that you're born into.
Example: You don't choose your parents, nor do you choose your siblings.
If most of your siblings engage in daily running but you don't, saying that you don't identify as a child of you parents because children of your parents engage in daily running, is a bit of a backwards to the objective truth. (I can't think of a better way to put it into words, but I hope that fellow thinkers can see the logic that I'm trying to explain.)
Maybe something like this: It is illogical to define yourself by the actions of others.
Or:
The actions of others, front define who you are.
tl;dr: You are GenZ not because of what you do. But because what you do, is done by GenZ.
Edit: You are not a man because you do manly things. Things are manly because a man does them.
My only impression after reading this is that gen z must be filled with anxiety constantly. My stomach hurts. Why are they like this? Why are they making so many negative assumptions about the other participant in a conversation? Why is everything malicious?
> I was born a couple of years before the golden era of Yahoo Chat
Wouldn’t this make the author a millennial?
Wouldn’t this make the author a millennial?
Yahoo chat was most popular from about 2002-2004, so no.
Ah that makes sense.
I guess I’ll still confused about the talk of Yahoo messenger along with this:
>As I’m stepping into my late 20s…
What is Gen Z? My rule of thumb has been “people that definitely don’t remember 9/11” to distinguish between two very different generations.
I guess I’ll still confused about the talk of Yahoo messenger along with this:
>As I’m stepping into my late 20s…
What is Gen Z? My rule of thumb has been “people that definitely don’t remember 9/11” to distinguish between two very different generations.
Someone born in 1998 would be entering the later half of their 20s this year.
Gen Z is generally said to begin in 1997.
Gen Z is generally said to begin in 1997.
Oh ok! I suppose that makes sense, thanks!
None of this is new to me. I can totally identify with most of the gotchats presented in the article. I am far from being a Gen Z. If you were actually active on irc or icq, msn, aol (which are even explecitly mentioned in the blog post!) you know all this.
Total side thought - people capitalizing letters at the start of sentences because they're on mobile and not because they're on a laptop, would be a fantastic clue in a detective novel to flag up what device someone is sending messages with.
I deliberately violate most of these to filter out people who aren't worth my time, lqtm.
Stupid question perhaps, but how does one separate sentences without fullstops then?
- Just send them as multiple lines or messages
- Ending a sentence with period sounds overly serious for one-liner or short messages. If you write multiple sentences in a message it's still OK to use periods (though writing a long paragraph over multiple messages can also come off as serious, so ultimately it depends on the tone you want to convey in your message)
- Ending a sentence with period sounds overly serious for one-liner or short messages. If you write multiple sentences in a message it's still OK to use periods (though writing a long paragraph over multiple messages can also come off as serious, so ultimately it depends on the tone you want to convey in your message)
Everything there is to say is at most one sentence, it's twitter like "conversations" everywhere. If it's not funny after 3s of reading it's not worth their attention, that's why meme pictures are the best.
I have a feeling many would have problems reading basic articles where their attention would scream about jumping paragraphs.
I have a feeling many would have problems reading basic articles where their attention would scream about jumping paragraphs.
the article doesn't get the rule quite right. if you're sending a message with more than one sentence in it, a full stop is fine. but on shorter messages, the end-of-sentence is implied by the end of the message, so putting in a full stop on top of that is redundant. it seems like you're putting extra emphasis on the ending part, and the implication is something like: "there will be no further discussion." so it can seem hostile.
and this isn't a gen z thing. it's just how instant messaging has worked forever.
and this isn't a gen z thing. it's just how instant messaging has worked forever.
[deleted]
when you send
> I never thought of this until a friend asked "Were you outside when texting me?"
The only thing that surprised me was that "outside" simply means "outside your home" now.
The only thing that surprised me was that "outside" simply means "outside your home" now.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is really funny. Some things I understand and some I find just foolish. Thanks for sharing
I'm gonna zooming away laughing because i basically don't use any zoomer social media.
> But do NOT ever send :) or
Is this a thing now? Smileys are bad?
Is this a thing now? Smileys are bad?
nobody should play along with this bullshit. grow up. This is just some stupid kids, who have all time to "feel" things.
K, haha. :)
Am I doing it right?
Am I doing it right?
kay.
[deleted]
Wonderful.
SunghoYahng(2)
Not stated, but implicit: If you have an Android phone, throw it away. No one wants to see your green bubbles, and no one can see if you've seen their texts if you have an Android.
Get an iPhone, like 90% of Gen Z. Or gtfo.
Get an iPhone, like 90% of Gen Z. Or gtfo.
Who TF is still using sms (or whatever chimera its morphed into) in the year 2023?
All, and I really do mean ALL, messages that arrive on my phone are over whatsapp, telegram or discord.
The green/blue bubble thing is classist and problematic and bringing it up is frankly embarrassing.
All, and I really do mean ALL, messages that arrive on my phone are over whatsapp, telegram or discord.
The green/blue bubble thing is classist and problematic and bringing it up is frankly embarrassing.
One of my friend groups (that I regularly meet for board game nights) still uses Group SMS for chat. I'm in another one with my parents. I use iMessage with my SO. A few friends reach out to me via SMS still (one even calls me and asks me to call him back in voicemail...that seems so archaic now).
But yeah, that's about it. Everything else is via some messenger service, mostly Discord or Facebook.
But yeah, that's about it. Everything else is via some messenger service, mostly Discord or Facebook.
> whatever chimera its morphed into
Apple's Messages
> Who TF is still using
Americans
Apple's Messages
> Who TF is still using
Americans
Counterpoint: I'm American.
You have an iPhone and you don't use iMessage?
I guess turning 30 has officially pushed me into the "old" generation. I'm ok with that.
I guess turning 30 has officially pushed me into the "old" generation. I'm ok with that.
Almost everyone I message frequently has an iPhone, and I don't think I've had an iMessage from a human in the last 5 years
>no one can see if you've seen their texts if you have an Android.
That sounds like a feature.
That sounds like a feature.
You can disable that in iOS too.
I don't have the stats, but this feels pretty US-centric; many (most?) other countries use a different app for chatting... LINE, WhatsApp, Insta, whatever
Yep, the bubble colour thing is 100% America only. "But we have free SMS!" Well so does everybody else around the globe.
We still don't use SMS, because it sucks in every single way compared to bespoke chat apps like Telegram, Signal or WhatsApp.
We still don't use SMS, because it sucks in every single way compared to bespoke chat apps like Telegram, Signal or WhatsApp.
This is a big surprise to me, mainly because the only time I get things in Messages.app it's an SMS from a business, 90% of which are either 2FA auth codes or my phone company telling me when the next payment/topup will happen.
90%.
You wish. Maybe in America. The rest of the world not. SMS are either for SPAM, for secure login PINs and for goverment advices. Not used by anyone anymore.
You wish. Maybe in America. The rest of the world not. SMS are either for SPAM, for secure login PINs and for goverment advices. Not used by anyone anymore.
I don't wanna see people who hold brands above people, I'll stick with my Android. Though I must admit I do judge people with Samsung phones, simply for accepting the worst of both worlds.
This article makes me want to communicate with zoomers even less than I did before. Android sounds appealing.
Not that it matters, I'm not American.
Not that it matters, I'm not American.
people still have iPhones?
It's not done to be edgy, or to fit in, or anything like that. Its different tones in text. If the other party doesn't speak this language, then the communication becomes very literal, very formal. Kind of like how someone who is oblivious to social cues comes across in spoken conversations, only without the stigma, as its quite normal to not know this stuff. But it's much harder to 'feel' the other person.