Saturday, 14 August 2010

Words that trouble me #1 - nice

I find this word so general in it's applicability, as to have virtually no meaning, especially when used in the realm of human relationships. Take for instance, the assertion, "oh he's a nice bloke!" - what precisely, does that mean?

If ever this word is used to describe me (a rare occasion) I feel, if not offended, then uncomfortable. And though I appreciate it's often applied when the user is too lazy (or perhaps unable) to be more specific in their description, I suspect its frequently used to state implicitly: this person is safe; this person is no threat; this person doesn't compromise my security; this person won't upstage me. He or she is, quite simply, nice.

Being a nice person puts you in big demand, but for all the wrong reasons. It's concluded, in terms of your sociability, you're about as effective as a slap with a limp biscuit.

And nice is sought after; people even marry nice, in order to preserve their ascendancy. Well, it's their prerogative, but personally, I prefer to aspire towards equality, which is often, if not always, painful, and requires effort; but then, if you're really respecting of the rights of others, and aware of your natural tendencies to trample on them, albeit subtly, you'll have no issue with this, indeed, you'll welcome it!

Go on, test yourself! In future, when you find yourself ascribing this word to someone, try to be honest with yourself, what precisely are you saying? And if you're the recipient of such an ascription, consider what I've said, do you like being considered nice? Is nice, in view of what I've said, what you want to be?


Sari said...

Nice! Seriously, I mean. That's a very nice post. No limp biscuits about.

Ronald said...

Sari, I was expecting someone to say that. Bah! :-)

Michelle said...



I know what you mean about it being a lazy sort of term.. I probably use it way too much, and I can understand it why people don't like it used to describe them or whatever.

I would forgive one for using it if, for instance they need to describe a person they don't know too much about, all they know is they don't know of any harm of them.. so to speak, ie they are an ok person as far they know, not a shit etc..

in that case it's ok, and I'd prefer to be introduced to someone who is nice rather than who isn't. Of course when someone knows someone a bit more they should use better descriptors.. for sure. Those people are not nice people. *insert smiley here*

Michelle said...

I also use the word way too much to describe stuff.. now stuff has as much as a right to be described properly as people do.. I reckon. Well maybe almost as much.. and all I can say for myself is I use it so much because I'm lazy.

oh those people.. the ones I was taling about? They're preeds.


Ronald said...

Michele, first things first.... Thanks for the new word - preeds. I look forward to using it in future.

Have to agree about its use as a provisional assessment of someone, though I think using the term " okay" might be better. Don't know about you, but for me, okay sorta implies the jury is out. But as ever, what the fuck do I know? Won't let it stop me opining all over the place though. Arf!

Cheers. Muchos gracias. Bwanas knockers, and of course, the all important, stuff!

Maundering mutterer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.