this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
7 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

3977 readers
66 users here now

There is no such thing as a Stupid Question!

Don't be embarrassed of your curiosity; everyone has questions that they may feel uncomfortable asking certain people, so this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.


Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca still apply!


Thanks for reading all of this, even if you didn't read all of this, and your eye started somewhere else, have a watermelon slice ๐Ÿ‰.


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Redacted@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Annihilating wasteful expenditures is a perfectly acceptable thing to say, i dont think your example is correct.

[โ€“] just2look@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It may technically be correct, but the connotation is different. Annihilate suggests more violence or aggression, where eliminate likely does not in that context.

Its word choices like this that make writing sound strange when people use a thesaurus to try to add variety or to make something sound 'smarter'.

Certain word choices can be more emotionally loaded, more likely to provoke certain thoughts or associations.

[โ€“] Redacted@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In what way is eliminate not violent or aggressive?

[โ€“] just2look@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In some contexts eliminate would be violent and aggressive. If you eliminate a witness or eliminate competition it has a very different connotation to eliminating a bad habit for example.

Admittedly there can be variation in how people interpret word choice, but there are still differences between the two words.

[โ€“] scuppie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

+1 to you, otherwise

When You Have annihilated the Impossible Whatever Remains, However Improbable, Must Be the Truth

There's a difference between destroying something so it can never be true, and ruling it out through deductive reasoning why it can't be true. There's a greater opportunity to learn by dismissing something but leaving it intact.