It's not nonsense--it's very similar to what Kanye West was trying to express about agency, about ability, about where you are being not beyond your control.
Sure, but it’s possible to say all that using the actual words…
Instead of this Orwellian doublespeak bullshit.
What she said there was so deliberately obtuse, it’s like… What’s even the point?
Are we so “concerned” about libel now that we have to speak entirely in metaphor..? Because this is just… Naff to the point of ridiculousness, at this point…
Like, I get the message, but fuck, it does not need to be that dense, man…
Just fucking say what you clearly want to say, people! Stop mincing words, dammit!
Oh, come on now. It's not "Orwellian doublespeak," it's simple metaphor. It's no different than anything you'd see in any book, in which the author was getting just a little bit flowery. It's not even badly done.
If I were asked to speak ill of someone I loved or had loved, I'd probably come up with something similar.
An Australian would never speak like this, even if it was about someone they “loved” or “had loved”, as you say.
Nor would a Northern European. Nor would a German, Belgian or Dutch. Nor would a Russian. It’s flatly not a thing, to do this, in any of these cultures…
So… Depends on your cultural background, I suppose.
We (as in Aussies) are much more blunt and… Straightforward, than Yanks, Canucks and even Brits. And yet that is nothing, nothing compared to people from those other places I mentioned.
So… It does nothing, for me personally.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say, in my book.
She did. It's easily parsable, and not particularly ambiguous or confusing. I have no idea why you dislike it so much, or why you think it's an Australian thing to not understand this brand of communication.
It's not nonsense--it's very similar to what Kanye West was trying to express about agency, about ability, about where you are being not beyond your control.
Sure, but it’s possible to say all that using the actual words…
Instead of this Orwellian doublespeak bullshit.
What she said there was so deliberately obtuse, it’s like… What’s even the point?
Are we so “concerned” about libel now that we have to speak entirely in metaphor..? Because this is just… Naff to the point of ridiculousness, at this point…
Like, I get the message, but fuck, it does not need to be that dense, man…
Just fucking say what you clearly want to say, people! Stop mincing words, dammit!
Oh, come on now. It's not "Orwellian doublespeak," it's simple metaphor. It's no different than anything you'd see in any book, in which the author was getting just a little bit flowery. It's not even badly done.
If I were asked to speak ill of someone I loved or had loved, I'd probably come up with something similar.
I… Flatly disagree.
Then again, perhaps some of that is cultural.
An Australian would never speak like this, even if it was about someone they “loved” or “had loved”, as you say.
Nor would a Northern European. Nor would a German, Belgian or Dutch. Nor would a Russian. It’s flatly not a thing, to do this, in any of these cultures…
So… Depends on your cultural background, I suppose.
We (as in Aussies) are much more blunt and… Straightforward, than Yanks, Canucks and even Brits. And yet that is nothing, nothing compared to people from those other places I mentioned.
So… It does nothing, for me personally.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say, in my book.
She did. It's easily parsable, and not particularly ambiguous or confusing. I have no idea why you dislike it so much, or why you think it's an Australian thing to not understand this brand of communication.