About Schmidt: Google's Chief Emphatic Officer

Video Link. Literally. By Joe Sabia.

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE: Business • Funny

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Anonymous

They are taking off the Jobs one, but the thing is… they built and entire video like this from ONE PRESENTATION Jobs gave.

This is literally lame
millie fink

Ugh.

I would say that that usage of “literally” literally bugs the Hell out of me. I won’t, though, because then I would be providing an example of how that usage of “literally” bugs the Hell out of me.
Nicky G

I literally think Schmidt is a tool. He is, in actuality, something you might find in your toolbox. Along with other tools. Literally.
YarbroughFair

Have you all forgotten so soon? Mad T.V. has great “Literally” sketches. Very funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAIww1VRY7Y
pidg

Thumbs up if you thought it would fade ‘Literally.’ in as the third line of text at the very end.

Oh wait, this isn’t YouTube, what the-
DomoDomo

It’s an odd sensation to feel sorry for Eric Schmidt.
Antinous / Moderator

Am I the only person who knows half a dozen people named Eric Schmidt? What’s up with that?
- Ugly Canuck
  
  It’s a nice name.
- Anonymous
  
  Literally half a dozen?
millie fink

Two excellents, thank you! I can’t decide if I like the xkcd strip or the David Cross bit better.

I mean, more?

(That’s another one for the pedants–should we say we like something better, or we like it more?)
- Anonymous
  
  Both work but mean slightly different things. “I like it more” means the quantity by which you like it is higher, and “I like it better” means you have a better ability to appreciate it. We’re not trying to restrict language here, just retain useful concepts.
Oskar

If some pedantic person corrects your usage of “literally”, I’ve got the perfect comeback for you: ask the person to use the word correctly, and he/she will say something like “I literally jumped up and down” (when the person actually jumped up and down). You can then point out that that’s wrong too!. The word comes from the latin “littera” (meaning “letter”), and thus means something like “by the letter”. So, really, the only correct way to use the word is in a sentence like “I translated the book literally” (meaning staying as close to the original as possible). Even that’s questionable, some might argue that it could only be used in sentences like “I transcribed the book literally”.

And BAM!, you have now shown your pedantic friend that it’s foolish to always insist that words have some sort of intrinsic, never-changing meaning. Clearly, the meaning of words change, and “literally” has already changed a couple of times to something that’s unrecognizable from the original. It’s time to realize that it has changed meaning again, and now simply works as an intensifier.

Also, Eric Schmidt literally sucks balls.
- brillow
  
  I like your point. I tend to let people know that “literally” as in the case of many words, has multiple meanings (which you can look up in a dictionary if you are inclined.
  
  MW Definition 1:
  : in a literal sense or manner : actually
  
  : in effect : virtually
- Hugh
  
  Normally I’d agree with you Oskar. But mis-use of “literally” gets up my nose (not literally) because
  
  a) It’s changing to mean something almost exactly opposite the commonly understood meaning
  
  b) There’s already a good word for figuratively: figuratively. so why not stick with that, instead of substituting literally
  
  c) The “proper” meaning of literally is useful, and we’ll lose that if/when it switches
  
  d) The switch isn’t a done deal. Not everyone misuses it (yet). And if I just keep telling everybody every time they misuse it, the switch could be prevented.
- Anonymous
  
  If “literally” is just an intensifier now, though, what do I use when someone is shocked or petrified in more than just a figurative manner? Change in language is fine, but when it only serves the language less expressive I’d like to resist it. After all, pedants are part of how language develops, too.
  - Hugh
    
    “After all, pedants are part of how language develops, too.”
    
    I LLOLed.
Anonymous

http://xkcd.com/725/
Anonymous

Any time misuse of the word “literally” comes up, I’m reminded of this absolute treasure of a post found in craigslist’s “best of” section: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/van/144733448.html
turn_self_off

I find a certain other video of a different CEO with a love for superlatives more interesting.
Anonymous

That’s nothing. Now try “the”.
TheVoBRX

Literally, what an asshole!
otherthings

I misread that as “Chief Empathic Officer”.

This video didn’t have anywhere near as much Vulcan mind-melding as I expected.
- AnthonyC
  
  Same here! “My god, they know even more about me than I thought!”
werve

Oh, cut the bleeding heart crap, will ya? We’ve all got our switches, lights, and knobs to deal with, Striker. I mean, down here there are literally hundreds and thousands of blinking, beeping, and flashing lights, blinking and beeping and flashing – they’re *flashing* and they’re *beeping*. I can’t stand it anymore! They’re *blinking* and *beeping* and *flashing*! Why doesn’t somebody pull the plug!
- Gutierrez
  
  That sounds like a job for Joe Lieber-man!
Ugly Canuck

At least they don’t have a Chief Lymphatic Officer.
imag

This kind of video is just annoying. I counted (literally) 15 separate backgrounds, give or take a couple.

15 speeches and appearances represents a huge dataset to pull words from. I’m sure there were over a dozen words that could have been edited together in higher volume than “literally”…

…and that doesn’t even *include* the possibility that many of these appearances may have been based upon the same speech. It sounds like he is presenting the same thing multiple times and using two “literally”s in the same place in each presentation.

Maybe Schmidt overuses the word and maybe he doesn’t, but this video is not proof. Follow any circuit speaker and you can do the same thing to them. Editing can make anyone look ridiculous if you have enough footage. Maybe someone should follow the editor of this clip around for a day or two and do the same thing to them.
- jeffguevin
  
  The frequency of the use of “literally” makes the video funny, and you’re right, it may not represent the frequency with which Schmidt actually uses the word. But he mis-uses it in, it seemed to me, at least every other example. So…I get to snicker smugly. Hah.
Phikus

I think David Cross says it best.