New Post
Search
HelpWow, really?
in reply to a message by beethoven
Why would you go out of your way to disrespect someone?????
I'm a fan of nicknames but in general I find them really lazy. You're not calling a Nicholas "Nick" as a social surrender, you're doing it because you are a) as you stated, purposefully disregarding his given name or b) too lazy/busy/careless to pronounce the rest of it.
If I introduce myself to a stranger as "Madyson" and they try to refer to me as "Mady" I will ignore them. I will introduce myself (and any future children of mine) as the name I wish to be called and I think it's extremely rude and selfish for anyone to take it upon themselves to impose their own nicknames on anyone else.
I'm a fan of nicknames but in general I find them really lazy. You're not calling a Nicholas "Nick" as a social surrender, you're doing it because you are a) as you stated, purposefully disregarding his given name or b) too lazy/busy/careless to pronounce the rest of it.
If I introduce myself to a stranger as "Madyson" and they try to refer to me as "Mady" I will ignore them. I will introduce myself (and any future children of mine) as the name I wish to be called and I think it's extremely rude and selfish for anyone to take it upon themselves to impose their own nicknames on anyone else.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I'd call you Maddy.
edit: Actually, that's not realistic. If you got really upset about it I would call you Madyson. But I'd probably slip up often, and I'd think you were really uptight. My friend Richard insists on being Richard, because "Rick is [his] dad." I find this understandable but still annoying, though he's not so uptight in other ways, and I slip up and call him Rick a lot.
It's not lazy. I just don't think people have the right to be addressed with exactly the precise string of syllables that they demand. It's such a tiny, arbitrary thing to be uptight about. Why should you care if people call you Maddy instead of Madyson? It makes literally no difference at all.
I nickname people as soon as I get comfortable with them. It's symbolic of a give-and-take that I enjoy in my acquaintanceships. Demanding what to be called is very no-give.
edit: Actually, that's not realistic. If you got really upset about it I would call you Madyson. But I'd probably slip up often, and I'd think you were really uptight. My friend Richard insists on being Richard, because "Rick is [his] dad." I find this understandable but still annoying, though he's not so uptight in other ways, and I slip up and call him Rick a lot.
It's not lazy. I just don't think people have the right to be addressed with exactly the precise string of syllables that they demand. It's such a tiny, arbitrary thing to be uptight about. Why should you care if people call you Maddy instead of Madyson? It makes literally no difference at all.
I nickname people as soon as I get comfortable with them. It's symbolic of a give-and-take that I enjoy in my acquaintanceships. Demanding what to be called is very no-give.
This message was edited 5/16/2011, 8:38 AM
1
Here's an example of why you're being inconsiderate...
If you had a transgender friend who was once Adrian but is now female and wishes to be called Adriana, would you say that extra syllable is arbitrary? No, because being called Adrian is not an accurate reflection of who they are. The same applies for a Madeline who wishes to be called so, and not Maddie.
I understand that it's not your intent to be disrespectful, and that you see nicknames as a sign of closeness, which they are. But if a person deliberately asks not to be called by a nickname, you are intentionally disrespecting them by not obliging.
If you had a transgender friend who was once Adrian but is now female and wishes to be called Adriana, would you say that extra syllable is arbitrary? No, because being called Adrian is not an accurate reflection of who they are. The same applies for a Madeline who wishes to be called so, and not Maddie.
I understand that it's not your intent to be disrespectful, and that you see nicknames as a sign of closeness, which they are. But if a person deliberately asks not to be called by a nickname, you are intentionally disrespecting them by not obliging.
1
Loool not the same thing.
1
How?
How can you consider yourself a name enthusiast when you feel that the way syllables are arranged and said in a name is "such a tiny, arbitrary thing" and that a person doesn't have the right to be called by the name they answer to??
How can you consider yourself a name enthusiast when you feel that the way syllables are arranged and said in a name is "such a tiny, arbitrary thing" and that a person doesn't have the right to be called by the name they answer to??
1
Agreed.
This message was edited 5/16/2011, 6:55 PM
1
People call me Rach all the time, and someone asked me if I was bothered by it, once. I didn't know what to say, because it was such a trivial matter that I hadn't given it any thought.
We all feel differently, though. Some people don't like nicknames, and they have the right to be called whatever they wish.
We all feel differently, though. Some people don't like nicknames, and they have the right to be called whatever they wish.
This message was edited 5/16/2011, 12:09 PM
1
I feel like what they have the right to is to dislike when people call them nicknames. Not the right not to be called them.
1
I just don't think people have the right to be addressed with exactly the precise string of syllables that they demand
But it's THEIR name, not yours. I had a girl at camp named Margaret, not Maggie, just Margaret. It would have really selfish of us to put our feelings before her's and call her Maggie. The exact same thing goes for the girls named Izzy and Maddy. As much as I would have loved to call them Isabelle and Madeline, I called them what they asked to be called.
Whether I like a name or not, I always call someone by the name they are most comfortable with. I would hate to give them the message that I didn't care about their feelings.
But it's THEIR name, not yours. I had a girl at camp named Margaret, not Maggie, just Margaret. It would have really selfish of us to put our feelings before her's and call her Maggie. The exact same thing goes for the girls named Izzy and Maddy. As much as I would have loved to call them Isabelle and Madeline, I called them what they asked to be called.
Whether I like a name or not, I always call someone by the name they are most comfortable with. I would hate to give them the message that I didn't care about their feelings.
1
But it's THEIR name, not yours.
I feel like once you name someone something, it becomes common property in a way.
I also feel this way about music, incidentally. I think performer's feelings, in general, should override composers' intentions. I guess it's just a different worldview. I just don't think people have a right to as much autonomy as the current paradigm would have them think.
I feel like once you name someone something, it becomes common property in a way.
I also feel this way about music, incidentally. I think performer's feelings, in general, should override composers' intentions. I guess it's just a different worldview. I just don't think people have a right to as much autonomy as the current paradigm would have them think.
1
THANK YOU!
I too was particularly disgusted by the part of beethoven's reply that you quoted.
That logic leads to, "Well, Nevaeh, I think your name is stupid so I'm going to call you Eva instead, whether you like it or not - because you don't have the right to go by the name you were given."
*FACEPALM*
I too was particularly disgusted by the part of beethoven's reply that you quoted.
That logic leads to, "Well, Nevaeh, I think your name is stupid so I'm going to call you Eva instead, whether you like it or not - because you don't have the right to go by the name you were given."
*FACEPALM*
1
And I'd ignore you.
It DOES make a difference because Mady is NOT my name. Never has been never will be. So people don't have the right to be called by their own name???? That is preposterous! What the hell is the point of agonizing over what name to give your child if some rude and selfish people in society are going to intentionally eff it up anyway?? Imposing a casual nickname on a close friend in one thing. Purposefully calling someone by a nickname they don't want to be called by is just spiteful and totally out of line.
Thank the heavens none of my friends/acquaintances take pages from your (seriously misguided) book
It DOES make a difference because Mady is NOT my name. Never has been never will be. So people don't have the right to be called by their own name???? That is preposterous! What the hell is the point of agonizing over what name to give your child if some rude and selfish people in society are going to intentionally eff it up anyway?? Imposing a casual nickname on a close friend in one thing. Purposefully calling someone by a nickname they don't want to be called by is just spiteful and totally out of line.
Thank the heavens none of my friends/acquaintances take pages from your (seriously misguided) book
This message was edited 5/16/2011, 11:16 AM
1
I mean if I didn't know you I probably wouldn't call you a nickname, but I also wouldn't talk to you much then either...
1
I agree that insisting on a nickname when that's not what a person wants to be called IS disrespectful, but why would using a nickname be 'lazy'? They're just variants of a name, and a lot of people like going by them. I wouldn't say they were lazy. :/
1
Like I said, I'm a fan of nicknames. I have absolutely nothing against them. Obviously something like Bobby for Robert isn't "lazy" because they have the same amount of syllables and take the same amount of time to say. A shortening of Bobby to Bob, however, I see as a way of cutting corners.... it's like saying "legit" instead of "legitimate".... it's just a way of moving more quickly through conversation. Maybe hurried would be a more accurate term than lazy but it often seems to me that people just don't want to make the effort to pronounce the rest of the name. And I'm not afraid to admit that oftentimes I'm one of just such people when I call my boyfriend, Evan, "Ev." I'm not trying to rule it as bad, just an observation
1
But it's SO nice to have your kid have a one-syllable nickname. Do you know how many times a day I have to say "BEN?!" Plus it's much easier for him to learn over Benjamin. He can read "Ben" already, and he's not 3 yet. So I'm a fan of the short simple nn option.
Also, there are more reasons to have a nn than for something shorter. They can be used to show affection, too.
Not arguing, btw. I understand being somewhat against nicknames. It is refreshing to hear full names used that most often are used with nicknames! I just am quite pro-nickname because my name doesn't really have one, and I've always wished it did. I wanted to be one of the kids who got to tell the teacher what he/she wanted to be called when my full name got called on the first day of class! :)
Also, there are more reasons to have a nn than for something shorter. They can be used to show affection, too.
Not arguing, btw. I understand being somewhat against nicknames. It is refreshing to hear full names used that most often are used with nicknames! I just am quite pro-nickname because my name doesn't really have one, and I've always wished it did. I wanted to be one of the kids who got to tell the teacher what he/she wanted to be called when my full name got called on the first day of class! :)
This message was edited 5/16/2011, 1:36 PM
1
But I'm not against nicknames! Most of my favorites actually HAVE one syllable nicknames I plan on using. And like I said, I myself often refer to my boyfriend as "Ev" instead of Evan. I'm just not keen on others imposing their own nicknames on people when they never intended on having one
1
Ah, the ol' Supermarket Test. Never fails. :)
1