Hacker News Reader

Comment by legacynl | Hacker News Reader

Although I appreciate the article, what's the deal with calling depth thickness? Is it because it looks like the meme word 'thicc'?

> If you allow for the existence of secret treasures that can only be accessed with effort and analysis, then you empower the elitists and the snobs. “Buddy, don’t even talk to me until you’ve been in the cave!”

I don't agree with this statement. Being a snob and/or elitist means looking down upon others. If you appreciate these 'secret treasures' without being a dick about it, everybody wins.

View on HN

I think I like the term "thickness" over "depth" here because thickness implies a sort of solidity, an ability to stand up to being held and examined, turned over and and handled. Depth can feel unapproachable (the ocean is pretty deep and it is famously challenging to explore) while something which has thickness intuitively feels like you can walk right up to it and try to learn something.

This doesn't hold for all things - I would, for example, describe a wine as having "depth" but probably not "thickness" because in the case of potables "thickness" also implies a particular sort of textural feel, but I do like the idea of a piece of art as being thick with meaning as opposed to deep. A book which is deep can be reread multiple times, but a book which has thickness just sounds like a book that can live on your bookshelf and be paged through year after year for decades, with not only the content to support it but also the sturdiness to hold up to the use.

Also, depth does not necessarily mean substance. Holes in the ground have depth. I think thickness works well here.

I imagine the word thickness represents the great number of (metaphorical) layers of a painting, since paintings are the reoccurring symbol to talk about art in this essay.

I don't think the author is claiming you HAVE to be a dick about it. But that the pursuit of "thickness" does in reality give ammunition to a lot of people who are inevitably dicks about it seems observably true to me.

> what's the deal with calling depth thickness

It's almost as though the author thought about and cared about the content and exact words he chose. "Thick or Treat" and "Thickening agents" and "Slim pickings" even immediately evoking imagery of a thin slop gruel in my own head.

By using an unexpected word I think I thought more critically about it, in fact. Had the author used depth I would've immediately had more superficial imagery in my own head.

I think the fact that "thick" can mean "dim-witted" is proof that the author did not in fact choose their words carefully.

I think it's made obvious that "thick" can mean many different things. Personally, I've never heard "thick" to mean "dimwitted" or it ever used as such.

The full term is "thickheaded" but it can be abbreviated, as in "He's a bit thick, isn't he?"

"Thick" already has a meaning of "dimwitted" so it's a particularly strange choice of word in this context. Is this something this new use of "thick" as a synonym for "deep" something this author is trying to coin, or is this already an established meaning among younger generations?

As thick as the paint on the Lexus LS400. ;)

> Although I appreciate the article, what's the deal with calling depth thickness?

Possibly riffing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thick_description?

Although it can be annoying to step into someone else's situational language/definitions/grammar, it can be a good rhetorical trick to shed the preexisting cultural context of a preexisting term such as depth.

Given the butt-emphasis, there's also a certain allusion to Sir Mix-a-Lot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com