"Dealbreaker"
Mar. 29th, 2012 03:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThis is a completely random rant, but it really bugs me when people misuse "dealbreaker". I'm not sure, but I think it's similar to why so many people are annoyed by exaggerating "literally".
In my vocabulary "dealbreaker" means "I'm not willing to give this up. I'd rather walk away from the negotiation and accept the consequences of not getting _anything_ I want than give this up." Obviously, that means in a one-off negotiation you may have an incentive to lie about it: if tiny parliamentry party is needed to form a majority government with large parliamentry party, it's in tiny party's interest if everyone thinks they won't budge an inch on any issue, because then the big party has to agree on everything the little party wants, or go shopping around for another less-acceptible party they think they can compromise with. (In fact, the little party usually manages to get their way on ONE issue that's important to them, and compromise on everything else.)
But in general, it's more efficient to be honest. It wastes EVERYONE's time if you negotiate for a long time, and then someone suddenly refuses to budge on an important issue and you have to start over.
If you're looking to date someone short of marriage, it's likely that for most people "of the wrong continent" or "of the wrong gender" are dealbreakers: however much they may like the person, they're likely to be unable to agree to date.
But I don't think things like "intellectual, intelligent, British, same religion, same dietary preference, good job" are usually dealbreakers. Sure, most people find the vast majority of compatible partners in the set of people who match each other on those preferences, so it makes sense to triage and pay attention to those people _first_. But it's hardly a dealbreaker if you mean "well, it's less likely, but I'm perfectly happy with it if I like everything else". That's specifically the OPPOSITE of a dealbreaker.
But sometimes people continue to say "dealbreaker" in those situations, apparently specifically to annoy me, personally. (Not that I've ever said the word in my life, but I think I know what it means :))
Seriously, "having a car" is a dealbreaker? You'd refuse to date the president of the usa if his cars are all provided by the government by security reasons? You'd refuse to date someone between having their car stolen and getting the insurance money? You'd refuse to date someone living in NY or London who took taxis or public transport everywhere because parking and traffic are so expensive and slow even for middle class people like you? If you mean "not being an idle layabout" is a dealbreaker, say so, you'd probably offend fewer people than publicly denouncing everyone who's not you :)
In my vocabulary "dealbreaker" means "I'm not willing to give this up. I'd rather walk away from the negotiation and accept the consequences of not getting _anything_ I want than give this up." Obviously, that means in a one-off negotiation you may have an incentive to lie about it: if tiny parliamentry party is needed to form a majority government with large parliamentry party, it's in tiny party's interest if everyone thinks they won't budge an inch on any issue, because then the big party has to agree on everything the little party wants, or go shopping around for another less-acceptible party they think they can compromise with. (In fact, the little party usually manages to get their way on ONE issue that's important to them, and compromise on everything else.)
But in general, it's more efficient to be honest. It wastes EVERYONE's time if you negotiate for a long time, and then someone suddenly refuses to budge on an important issue and you have to start over.
If you're looking to date someone short of marriage, it's likely that for most people "of the wrong continent" or "of the wrong gender" are dealbreakers: however much they may like the person, they're likely to be unable to agree to date.
But I don't think things like "intellectual, intelligent, British, same religion, same dietary preference, good job" are usually dealbreakers. Sure, most people find the vast majority of compatible partners in the set of people who match each other on those preferences, so it makes sense to triage and pay attention to those people _first_. But it's hardly a dealbreaker if you mean "well, it's less likely, but I'm perfectly happy with it if I like everything else". That's specifically the OPPOSITE of a dealbreaker.
But sometimes people continue to say "dealbreaker" in those situations, apparently specifically to annoy me, personally. (Not that I've ever said the word in my life, but I think I know what it means :))
Seriously, "having a car" is a dealbreaker? You'd refuse to date the president of the usa if his cars are all provided by the government by security reasons? You'd refuse to date someone between having their car stolen and getting the insurance money? You'd refuse to date someone living in NY or London who took taxis or public transport everywhere because parking and traffic are so expensive and slow even for middle class people like you? If you mean "not being an idle layabout" is a dealbreaker, say so, you'd probably offend fewer people than publicly denouncing everyone who's not you :)
no subject
Date: 2012-03-29 11:21 pm (UTC)