undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdustyleary3y ago0 comments

It is technically true that ilk is not always used derogatorily. But it is almost always derogatory in modern connotation.

https://grammarist.com/words/ilk/#:~:text=It's%20neutral.,a%....

Also, note that all of the negative examples are politics related. If a politician reads the word 'ilk', it is going to be interpreted negatively. It might be the case that ilk does "always mean" a negative connotation in politics.

You could change 'ilk' to 'friends', and keep the same meaning with very little negative connotation. There is still a slight negative connotation here, in the political arena, but it's a very vague shade, and I like it here.

"Altman and his ilk try to claim that..." is a negative phrase because "ilk" is negative, but also because "try to claim" is invalidating and dismissive. So this has elements or notes of an emotional attack, rather than a purely rational argument. If someone is already leaning towards Altman's side, then this will feel like an attack and like you are the enemy.

"Altman claims that..." removes all connotation and sticks to just the facts.

0 comments

elil173y ago

Well even if ilk had a negative connotation for my intended audience (which clearly it does to some people), I am actually trying to invalidate and dismiss Altman's arguments.

dustylearyOP3y ago

When someone is arguing from a position of strength, they don't need to resort to petty jibes.

You are already arguing from a position of strength.

When you add petty jibes, it weakens your perceived position, because it suggests that you think you need them, rather than relying solely on your argument.

(As a corollary, you should never use petty jibes. When you feel like you need to, shore up your argument instead.)

elil173y ago

Well I didn't intend it as a "petty jibe," but in general I disagree. Evocative language and solid arguments can and do coexist.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

elil173y ago

Well even if ilk had a negative connotation for my intended audience (which clearly it does to some people), I am actually trying to invalidate and dismiss Altman's arguments.

dustylearyOP3y ago

When someone is arguing from a position of strength, they don't need to resort to petty jibes.

You are already arguing from a position of strength.

When you add petty jibes, it weakens your perceived position, because it suggests that you think you need them, rather than relying solely on your argument.

(As a corollary, you should never use petty jibes. When you feel like you need to, shore up your argument instead.)

elil173y ago

Well I didn't intend it as a "petty jibe," but in general I disagree. Evocative language and solid arguments can and do coexist.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse