zlacker

I don't mean it as a personal insult at all! The word ilk actually means "a type of people or things similar to those already referred to," it is not an insult or rude word.

>>elil17+(OP)
TIL! https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ilk

still, there are probably a lot of people like me who have heard it used (incorrectly it seems) as an insult so many times that it's an automatic response :-(

>>elil17+(OP)
It’s always used derogatorily. I agree that you should change it if you don’t mean for it to come across that way.

>>mitch3+G1
That's simply untrue. Here are several recently published articles which use ilk in a neutral or positive context:

https://www.telecomtv.com/content/digital-platforms-services...

https://writingillini.com/2023/05/16/illinois-basketball-ill...

https://www.jpost.com/j-spot/article-742911

>>mitch3+G1
Not true.

>>elil17+e4
Doesn’t matter. It won’t be well received. It sounds negative to most readers and being technically correct warns you no points.

>>elil17+e4
Remember: you are doing propaganda. Feelings don't care about your facts.

>>freedo+01
Don't worry, you're not a senator.

And, if there's one thing politicians are know for it's got to be ad hominem.

>>fauxpa+P7
Well I don't think it really matters what most readers think of it because I was writing it hoping that it would be read by congressional staffers, who I think will know what ilk means.

>>mitch3+G1
I'm mean, at this point I'm going to argue that it you believe ilk is only ever used derogatorily, you're only reading and hearing people who have axes to grind.

I probably live quite distally to you and am probably exposed to parts of western culture you probably aren't, and I almost never hear nor read ilk as a derogation or used to associate in a derogatory manner.

>>elil17+e4
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.

>>elil17+db
It's also possible you could be wrong about something, and maybe people are trying to help you.

>>dustyl+Oc
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.

>>elil17+(OP)
Don't fret too much. I once wrote to my senator about their desire to implement an unconstitutional wealth tax and told them that if they wanted to fuck someone so badly they should kill themself so they could go blow Jesus, and I still got a response back.

>>elil17+9g
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.)

>>elil17+(OP)
> Kind; class; sort; type; ; -- sometimes used to indicate disapproval when applied to people.

> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

Yes, only sometimes used to indicate disapproval, but such ambiguity does not work to your favor here. It is better to remove that ambiguity.

>>freedo+01
Tone, intended or otherwise, is a pretty important part of communication!

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

>>DANmod+uB
There is this idea that the shape of a word, how it makes your mouth and face move when you say it connotes meaning on its own. This is called "phonosemantics", just saying "ilk" makes one feel like they are flinging off some sticky aggressive slime.

Ilk almost always has a negative connotation regardless of what the dictionary says.

>>anigbr+f6
I'd argue that you're right that there's nothing intrinsically disparaging about ilk as a word, but in contemporary usage it does seem to have become quite negative. I know the dictionary doesn't say it, but in my discussions it seems to have shifted towards the negative.

Consider this: "Firefighters and their ilk." It's not a word that nicely described a group, even though that's what it's supposed to do. I think the language has moved to where we just say Firefighters now when it's positive, and ilk or et al when it's a negative connotation.

Just my experience.