Transcription

A Twitter post by Dana Schwartz @DanaSchwartzzz that reads Whenever I scold my cat, I use the royal we" so she doesn’t feel so ashamed. “We don’t eat that. We don’t chew on electrical cords," I say. It’s as if I, too, have a problem with eating wires or plastic I found on the floor and she and I are working on that problem together.

  • JustAnotherPodunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I just want to know how to make them stop with the cable chewing. I’ve repaired or replaced so many electronic cords. I’m losing my mind.

    I’m learning that I am not a cat person.

      • JustAnotherPodunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah my house plants are also victims in this situation. They literally destroy everything I love.

        I tried putting chili oil on the cables and now I’m convinced that my cats could eat the most potent of Indian food and remain unscathed.

        I think they crave it now…

  • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s as if I, too, have a problem with eating wires or plastic I found on the floor and she and I are working on that problem together.

    That’s precisely not the royal we. The royal we would imply that she means only herself and not herself and her cat.

    • kevincox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      No, this is the right meaning royal we. If you say “we are going into battle” it is talking about the person being talked to not the person talking. So in this case “We don’t eat that” would be implying that the cat doesn’t eat that, not actually saying anything about the speaker even though “we” would imply they are included.

      • tomcatt360@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Its a nosism, but its not a royal we because it is refering to both the speaker and the cat. I believe the Wikipedia page refers to this usage as the patronizing we.

        • kevincox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I guess it depends how you look at it. From my point of view the speaker isn’t actually talking about themselves. That is the “royal” part. And I mean she does say “as if” to back up that yes, she is not actually including herself.

          • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The royal “we” refers to me (the speaker) and my majesty. It does not include other people.

            This is also why people don’t ask royalty anything about themselves directly, but always ask about their majesty or some other grandiose trait appropriate to their station. It’s honestly funny how ridiculous people can get with their boot licking that this is still considered normal.

          • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            That is the “royal” part

            But it’s not.

            We, the king, say this with all authority - the “royal we” is used when one wants to say “I” but make it sound more grandiose and important.

            What the woman in the OP describes is the “patronising we”. Yes, it’s also a nosism, but it’s very much not the “royal we”.

          • 3abas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            The “royal we” refers to royalty referring to themselves individually in the plural form.

      • dil@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        no its like when a business uses we but it’s all just one person, like webdevs, I know theres a email hoster that uses we all over his site except one section where he specifies it’s the royal we and just him

  • CubitOom@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Couldn’t that be confusing for the cat, saying we don’t do something that they are currently doing?

  • BeeegScaaawyCripple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    “is that an approved scratch-/chew-/biteable?” is what I use. I think they understand because they react with shame abs go to the approved scratchers and stuff

  • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Oh my love, I love you much * scoop * here are some kisses. Let’s not play with cords. Cords are not safe. Oh look here are some spring toys!” * plays with spring toys like they are my favorite thing *

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I just say no in a firm voice and flick my hand at them like it’s a paw.

    They find the flick very offensive for some reason, so it seems like an effective scolding technique.

    Of course if there’s an alternative they should be doing I try redirecting them to that, but sometimes there isn’t (like climbing on the top of the kitchen cabinets and staring down from the ceiling).