this post was submitted on 30 May 2026
1005 points (98.6% liked)
memes
21413 readers
2892 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The term "touch typing" is not a generic term for typing at any particular speed, or for typing with or without looking at the keys. It refers to a specific typing technique in which specific fingers are used for specific keys. Referring to the term correctly is not pedantry or elitism. I don't think anyone is arguing that another technique is inferior, or that it is in any way not typing, only that it is, in fact, different from the specific typing technique referred to as "touch typing".
In a similar vein, a self-taught fighter could potentially be more skilled than one with some training in Taekwondo. That doesn't mean that the self-taught fighter is using Taekwondo, and pointing out that difference is not "pedantic at best"; it's simply correct.
Language doesn't work like that. In professional and educational contexts? Yeah, it'll likely refer to a specific technique. But in general? Absolutely not. I'm calling it pedantic because the technique is just that - a technique. I'm not claiming that it has anything to do with skill, WPM, or accuracy, just that they're the same in those regards. On that point, your analogy doesn't really work for me, since we have very different views on the topic. You think touch typing is only a specific technique, whereas I think it has a less restrictive definition, certainly in everyday use. To use the same analogy, for me it's like you're saying only it's only Taekwondo if it's a specific style of Taekwondo.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're coming upon others who agree with my assertion that the term "touch typing" refers to a specific technique for typing, and using the term to refer to that specific technique, and your response is to call them pedantic because you think the term should be defined more broadly than they (or I) understand it to be defined. Is that correct?
As for the issue you point out with my analogy, I think one of us is confused, and I'm not attempting to imply that I know which one. I used the analogy because touch typing is a specific technique for typing, just as Taekwondo is a specific type of martial arts. A self-taught fighter would be analogous to a self-taught typist. If you believe the term "touch typing" absolutely cannot refer to a specific typing technique, then I would ask for the term you believe is correct to refer to that specific technique to which the rest of us are referring. I'm fine with using a different term to refer to the technique to which I am attempting to refer, but "touch typing" is the only one I know. If you know another, please provide it, and I'll use that.
I'm not the one who started this discussion on what touch typing means, I've just given my view on it. Perhaps I could've phrased it more softly, but I won't deny it's what I think. And again, I agree with your assertion, but only when specificity is actually required. Otherwise, if you're going to claim, outside of those contexts, that touch typing only refers to a specific technique, then yes, I think you are being pedantic.
EDIT: Since I replied to your initial comment, I'll update this one too. There definitely is some confusion with regard to your analogy. The point I was trying to make is that while Taekwondo is a type of martial art, it has different styles. From my point of view, you think only a specific style meets the definition of Taekwondo, and all others are something else entirely. If I were to choose a different name, I'd say something like 10-finger, or the home row technique. But I'm not going to try and force you to use any term other than what you want to use. I just have my own opinion on when it's appropriate to be strict and precise in its definition.
The point is that I and others are clearly attempting to refer to a specific technique, even if we're doing so using a term with which you disagree. If you dislike us using the term we're using, then please provide an alternate term that we can use to refer to the specific technique. Otherwise, how are we to discuss said specific technique without giving offense?
I edited my reply after I saw your edit.
it is generic
it is clearly descriptive
find a better term to call it
We all voted on it, did you miss election day?