• Shapillon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t get why it grinds everyone gears. Isn’t it just an hyperbole? (y’know like for the hypersoups ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What bothered me about it was that they’re stating it’s everyone doing these things, but I think it’s probably a small minority.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone sourced a couple higher in the comments. Their info showed 2% of the populous doing what “literally everyone” is doing. The other stat they included was 80% of the populous had never used a sleep aid in their life. So the talk of it being hyperbole is even a stretch.

        Saying literally everyone in the U.S. is a cigarette smoker would be more accurate. (Not accurate)

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is hyperbole, but the problem is that it’s using a word that was supposed to specify that something was not hyperbole as hyperbole, rendering it useless.

      • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the problem is that it’s using a word that was supposed to specify that something was not hyperbole as hyperbole, rendering it useless.

        … Or… Because it’s a word specifically meant to indicate it is not hyperbolic, using it in that way is literally the superlative hyperbole.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          At the cost of the word’s intended use, unfortunately. RIP literally. It literally died.

          • Classy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Now you have to hit literally in the chest with an adrenaline shot to bring lividity into its decaying body.

            quite literally

            actually literally

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              A good point, I haven’t seen “quite literally” used to mean “figuratively.” Perhaps there’s some usefulness to be had yet.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but its use to mean its opposite didn’t become widespread until the past decade or so.

          • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Incorrect. People have been using it the way you are complaining about for hundreds of years. It’s a new phenomenon that people complain about it being used the way you disapprove of. I’d attribute the recent complaints to lack of literary exposure and anti intellectualism in recent years.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except some of the earliest uses of the word “literally” that didn’t pertain to letters and glyps we in the form of hyperbole.
        Literal as factual and literal as exaggeration both about the same age and precedent, and have been used long enough that it’s just part of the English language at this point.
        May as well complain about how “discreet” and “indiscreet” are opposites, but “flammable” and “inflammable” are the same.

        https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/autoanto.html

        English is a language of contradictions and massively confusing syntax. News at 11.

    • theragu40@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think because it’s a pretty gross mischaracterization of the demographic? Usually hyperbole is used for effect to more emphatically illustrate a generally true or accepted point.

      The number of Americans who use nightly sleep aids is extremely low. Like, a vast vast majority of people never take them. I don’t know anyone who regularly takes them, and honestly I don’t know many who take them even occasionally.

      So this meme uses hyperbole to drive home the idea that Americans have a pill problem regarding sleep aids and no one in Europe does. I have no idea how the numbers shake out in Europe but I can say in America it is not as characterized. So it’s less hyperbole (exaggeration of a fact) and more like a lie.

      • Shapillon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok so I did a quick search and:

        • 2% of americans declare using sleeping aids daily.
        • 18% declare using some some

        So yeah the amount of people “litteraly using medication to sleep every night” ia quite low. The use amongst the population is still generally high so I wouldn’t directly classify that hyperbole as a lie. (but I’m not claiming I’m right on that it’s a feelings calculation).

        I’m also pretty sure these numbers are underreported for example because of the stigma around using “recreational drugs” as an illegal mean to self medicate.

        Also it’s nice for you to have nobody (that you know of ofc) struggling to sleep.

        Where I’d personally feel more nitpicky about that meme is the opposition with Europe. I don’t think we sleep much better. A lot of people around me (and myself included) heavily rely on sedation in one form or another to have any semblance of sleep. Although there might be some selection bias since alot of folks I know are handicaped in one way or another so we don’t tend to have the best physical and psychic health ^^’

        • theragu40@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Appreciate you finding numbers when I didn’t go to that effort. It makes me wonder if numbers are pretty similar globally. 2% having chronic insomnia doesn’t sound completely out of line to me.

          • Shapillon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Hey \o

            The planet litterally when halfway around the sun during the time I took to respond to you.

            The definition of chronic insomnia is “at least 3 times a week for at least 3 monthes” (simplified but that’s the idea)

            So the real number of people with chronic insomnia is at the very least 2% but it’s probably closer to those 18%.

            I hope time has been kind to you in those last 6 monthes. I’ve got a new treatment that allows me to have a good night of sleep almost everyday and it’s a godsend ^^

      • Shapillon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It might’ve been where I got it from :p

        It wasn’t conscious but I used to watch what he did awhile back.