News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No feigning surprise by skybrian on Saturday April 29, 2017 @07:20PM (#14229337)
I think the author was using "feign" to mean "express in a negative way" - focus on what it looks like, not how honest it is. At the point where someone is saying "how can you not know that" they've already gone beyond their immediate honest reaction into moral judgement.
Re:No feigning surprise by matthewwiese on Saturday April 29, 2017 @09:48PM (#14229765)
Oh I no doubt understood the author's intentions with using feign in that manner. However, that does not mean it was the correct term to use, despite what we may "feel" or "get" from it; nevertheless, troubling ourselves with such a minor detail is really rather ridiculous. Besides, if we go any further, conversation on this runs the risk of igniting a rather banal descriptivist/prescriptivist flame war. :)

The closest term to describe what the author meant is I believe a litote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes

Re:No feigning surprise by edzorg on Sunday April 30, 2017 @04:32PM (#14233675)
I think this is a good example of a 'well, actually.' https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment
Re:No feigning surprise by jancsika on Monday May 01, 2017 @05:48PM (#14242024)
I'm not grandstanding. I can prove it by admitting I still don't understand the rule:

If a newcomer expresses genuine surprise, are they breaking the "No feigning surprise" rule or not?

edit: typo

Re:No feigning surprise by adrienne on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @03:34AM (#14244616)
There is no "litote". "Litotes" is not a plural noun.