1) Has "obviously" been discussed here lately?

What percent of the time is it used to mean "obviously" and what percent
to mean "not surprisingly"?

2) Heard a commentary on the news that said that when Trump claims that
judges have treated him unfairly, he knows that someone out there will
attack the judge. Then she said something should be done to stop his
reckless behaviours. But the behaviour she just described is not
reckless, it's intentional.

micky:

> What percent of the time is it used to mean "obviously"
> and what percent to mean "not surprisingly"?

But there is a connexion: the obvious thing is often the
least surprising one.

> Heard a commentary on the news that said that when Trump
> claims that judges have treated him unfairly, he knows
> that someone out there will attack the judge. Then she
> said something should be done to stop his reckless
> behaviours. But the behaviour she just described is not
> reckless, it's intentional.

This is a defensible user of reckless, meaning specifically
very inconsidereate of specific people and their ethical
norms.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

In alt.english.usage, on Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:20:43 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

>micky:
>
>> What percent of the time is it used to mean "obviously"
>> and what percent to mean "not surprisingly"?
>
>But there is a connexion: the obvious thing is often the
>least surprising one.

Sure there is a connection, but there is also a big difference. People
aren't totally stupid. They're only wrong. I'd say more than half of the
time, maybe 75% of the time or even more these days, people call things
obvious that are not obvious at all.
>
>> Heard a commentary on the news that said that when Trump
>> claims that judges have treated him unfairly, he knows
>> that someone out there will attack the judge. Then she
>> said something should be done to stop his reckless
>> behaviours. But the behaviour she just described is not
>> reckless, it's intentional.
>
>This is a defensible user of reckless, meaning specifically
>very inconsidereate of specific people and their ethical
>norms.

It's not that trump was inconsiderate. He did consider the other people
and he sought to attack them.

If he pulled out a gun and shot someone, would you call that
"inconsiderate".

If someone speeds down the street with other cars and pedestrians, 60 in
a 30 mile zone, because he's having fun or he's in a hurry to get
somewhere, he's reckless. If he aims the car at a pedestrian, to hurt
him or scare him, that's beyond recklessness and no longer reckless.
It's intentional.

Reckless: utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action;
without caution; careless. But trump and the driver in my last scenario
*are* concerned. They have consequences in mind that they are seeking.

micky:

> People aren't totally stupid. They're only wrong. I'd say
> more than half of the time, maybe 75% of the time or even
> more these days, people call things obvious that are not
> obvious at all.

This is a psychological manipulation: implying something
must be obvious to the reader unless he is stupid. Loth to
seem stupid (to himself and others), the reader often
prefers to agree with the manipulator.

> If he pulled out a gun and shot someone, would you call
> that "inconsiderate".

I would not, but the usage may be defended as describing a
behavior inconsiderate /of the that person/, ignoring his
interesets, rights, feelings, &c.

> If someone speeds down the street with other cars and
> pedestrians, 60 in a 30 mile zone, because he's having fun
> or he's in a hurry to get somewhere, he's reckless. If he
> aims the car at a pedestrian, to hurt him or scare him,
> that's beyond recklessness and no longer reckless. It's
> intentional.

I agree, but to the maniac that pedestrian may be just an
NPC standing in the way of osing pursuit. Again, this
behavior shows the criminal's indifference to human lifes,
and recklessness is a kind of indifference.

I said the usage was /defensible/, not that it was /good/.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments