• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

The Figure of Speech That You Dislike The Most

"It's a matter of life and death" is one I hear constantly among my fellow senior high school students, and it just doesn't sit right with me. I can't imagine how it would be for Afghan refugees and cancer patients to hear people casually throwing about these two enormous possibilities that they have to contend with each day, in describing the culmination of someone's privileged Western education. Sometimes I think they really need to wake up and see where they stand on a broad, global scale. It's not a matter of life and death, it's a matter of being super-super-lucky, or super-super-super lucky. This is an outlook that saves me a lot of petty stress.
 
The only time I ever say "matter of life or death" is when I'm saying it's not a matter of life or death, to put whatever my associate is freaking out about into some perspective.
 
It makes me nuts when someone answers a question with "Well, yes and no". I get that not everything is black and white, and can certainly understand shades of grey. But when someone says that it usually means that they will not actually answer the question but I have to wait and listen to them not answer it, at length. Maddening.
I have a funny anecdote relating to this. I was in a mock trial competition this March and questioning a witness. I asked her something like "She could have been competent, right?" and the witness was just hemming and hawing, trying to avoid the question, saying things like "Under specific circumstances, yes, but I believe in this situation?"

"Yes or no?"

"Well, I think that if several of these factors had been different?"

"Yes or no?"

"Well, it's not a yes or no question!"

"Your honor, I asked the witness if it was possible that Ms. Langston was competent at the time of the contract, this is clearly a YES OR NO QUESTION."

That got a good laugh out of the whole room.
 
I really hate the term "came out of nowhere." That's somewhat insulting to both the person about whom they are talking and to a person who actually does know from where the person comes. Just a few seconds ago, the TBS broadcasters said that Pete Kozma came out of nowhere, when I in fact know that he was playing for the Memphis Redbirds, and had in fact played a bit in the major leagues last year.

Another term I hate is when somebody refers to somebody as someone "nobody has ever heard of." That is a disgustingly large generalization, and when I actually have heard of somebody on whom they use this expression (e.g. Pete Kozma), it makes me mad that people actually expect me not to know who he is. I would feel much, much better if they use terms such as "a person not many people have ever heard of."

Whew. That felt good. Sorry for the rant.
 
I'm with you there, buckyboy14. I really think it comes down to the fact that people don't like to admit that, in some instances, they're ignorant. It's not a horrible crime not know something, but it just seems to hurt people's pride too much to admit that they haven't heard of someone or something that's important, so they take that "who cares?" or "who's heard of them?" attitude to try to distance themself from their imperfections.

So, that's my rant. A "little-known person" or a "well-known" person, but not someone everybody's heard of. They annoy me as well, because there was always a stage where people didn't know whoever it is they're talking about, and it's not as if the knowledge was won through gruelling labour, more like just a chance encounter on the internet.
 
I dislike it when people use "How are you?" and "what's up?" as a form of greeting when they do not intend for me to respond. If I'm passing someone by, and they say "what's up?" when they mean "Hello", I feel obligated to respond to the question and that just ends with me getting some awkward looks. Why ask a question if you do not want or expect an answer? I can understand if it is used for rhetorical purposes in writing, but I do not understand asking someone how they are doing if you do not want them to respond or respond honestly.
 
I'm with you there, buckyboy14. I really think it comes down to the fact that people don't like to admit that, in some instances, they're ignorant. It's not a horrible crime not know something, but it just seems to hurt people's pride too much to admit that they haven't heard of someone or something that's important, so they take that "who cares?" or "who's heard of them?" attitude to try to distance themself from their imperfections.

So, that's my rant. A "little-known person" or a "well-known" person, but not someone everybody's heard of. They annoy me as well, because there was always a stage where people didn't know whoever it is they're talking about, and it's not as if the knowledge was won through gruelling labour, more like just a chance encounter on the internet.

I don't really follow pop culture much so I have a lot of these gaps in my knowledge. I never feel weird about saying that I don't know someone, and I've found that if I say it with a positive tone and ask them to tell me about person X, they're usually happy to introduce me to something they think is awesome. I too find it strange that people are so weird about that. So what if you don't know someone.
 
"How are you", haha, I have an odd history with this one. I don't recall anyone ever asking me the question until I was in ninth grade, when it was my boyfriend asking, quite regularly. The response I ended up giving was similar to, "I don't know yet," or if it was later in the day, I would definitely have to spend extra time thinking about it. I didn't see a reason to pay that much attention to my emotions throughout the day, when it seemed like I functioned just fine without doing so. I still don't see a reason to call a day a good or a bad day, especially before it is over.

Then one of my Spanish teachers mentioned the question ?Como eres? This one I had fun with, for example:
"How are you?"
"I'm American."

Then when I was really depressed around the age of 17, I thought up a witty response: "How I'm feeling only matters if it affects my ability to serve others." And in my perception, it didn't. I was reaching out. It might have hurt, but I was doing okay at it. Since then I've been taught that happy people are more likeable, blah blah blah. But I don't always believe it. Happy people can empathize with happy people, whereas it's harder for them to love the people who need it the most and still be happy. Sad people can empathize with sad people (unless they are completely unable to get out of their own worlds).

Now I ask people how they are feeling only when I think I need the information, i.e. when I plan to spend a lot of time with them at the moment and to adjust my treatment toward them according to their feelings. This is a relatively new development...

/Essay.
 
Last edited:
I've found that if I say it with a positive tone and ask them to tell me about person X, they're usually happy to introduce me to something they think is awesome.

That's the way I try to be as well, but it gets tiresome for me when for so long people never reciprocate with this cheerful curiosity. Now I'm starting to give up on it.

Oh and Liza Jane, it must have been agonising for you when people were trying to help you with your depression with mindless optimism. You do often need to have experienced some similarly depressing things in your life in order to understand, otherwise you just think, "ooh, that's a bit intense" and laugh yourself giddy with endorphin's.
 
"IT GETS BETTER"

When mouthed by some wealthy famous possibly Narcissistic celerity intending to ease the suffering of some kid being bullied & goaded to the point of suicidal ideation by a bunch of cruel possibly psychopathic peers. By what alchemical process does 'it' get better?!? It only gets better when the adults in the kid's environment get off their @$$es, stop commissioning ever more unending studies, throwing parades or other Kumbaya-style 'we are the world' stupidities & DO Something about the miscreants! Telling the victim to say STOP or DON'T DO THAT: YOU'RE HURTING ME makes as much sense as telling a mugger, "HEY! THAT'S MY WALLET!" He KNOWS that: it's why he's mugging you, moron!!! The bully or abuser or criminal knows the victim is being harmed: the more harm he can get away with, the better for him: just like a bank robber wants to get away with the most cash he can. If an abusive person can get you to harm yourself, so much the better: his hands remain relatively clean AND he gets that 'remote control' sense of power. This is like a malicious hacker who gets you to give him your banking info so you effectively hand him your money: saves him from having to risk getting seen clobbering it out of you.

These kinds of stupid expressions & campaigns completely ignore the harm being done to the child or youth NOW & his need for support, relief & justice. It also reduces what is often terrible violence & abuse to the banal level of 'bullying'. Unlike the campaigns lies, so-called bullies do NOT peak in high school: many go on to become CEOs, top military men & other affluent professionals since society tacitly encourages & admires them: that British chef is a good example as is Charlie Sheen & Arnold Schwarzenegger. There are many examples whose names are only known in their field. So long as society fears, encourages & rewards them, it won't get better: it'll persist & even worsen.
 
@ Pella: "SMILE & YOU'LL FEEL BETTER!" (because your face will be so sore that you'll forget about your other problems)
 
When they tell me they know what I am going through and then give me oversimplified advice, just tells me they don't know what I am going through.
 
"There's nothing worse than [fill in the blank--usually with something comparatively benign, like a paper cut.]"
 
"There's nothing worse than [fill in the blank--usually with something comparatively benign, like a paper cut.]"

This is particularly interesting when people don't use it consequently. First it's "there's nothing worse than a paper cut", the next day "there nothing worse than rain"... .make up your mind already.
 
Along the same lines: "I would KILL for __________." <---add something banal here like an ice cream cone. Really?!? I know some people are prepared to kill for relatively little but...
 
Along the same lines: "I would KILL for __________." <---add something banal here like an ice cream cone. Really?!? I know some people are prepared to kill for relatively little but...

Someone once said it, to where I questioned it by going... "are you prepared to go to jail for it?" which resulted in "no, I said I'd kill for it"... well, the real world dictates jailtime for murder, lol. Figures of speech and not thinking about consequences...
 
Nevertheless.

All words used to fill space and time-
Do nothing to explain, show,or reveal the topic-
AND requires me to pay you attention always ignites my fury. FURY.

Hi! New here!
 

New Threads

Top Bottom