I think the chamber of commerce could care less. They're a force of evil against consumers. If they had it their way there'd still be lead paint on your walls, seatbelts would be optional, and the ingredients of your food would be a mystery.
It's a common idiomatic expression and I'd be willing to wager that everyone who read it understood what it meant. I'd also wager that most people could really give a shit if it offended a few language prudes.
I would usually agree, although not all idiomatic constructions are created equal. I find the "could care less" construction to be as nonsensical and dumb sounding as "irregardless". Moreover, I found your response to be gratuitously offensive as it paired vulgarity with an implied insult to your parent commenter.
I followed those links, and was rewarded with what I believe to be one of the best discussions on HN. Thank you for having taken the time to share that.
In hindsight though, I am saddened at how much more often conversations like that used to occur on HN, and how rarely they seem to now.
I read your linked comment, but I didn't find it persuasive. I'm no language Nazi. It's clear that language pedants are a pet peeve of yours, and that's fine, but language being fluid is not the same thing as language not having boundaries. It also doesn't imply that users of the language can be prevented from having opinions about its usage. We all together decide the standard, as I'm sure you'll agree. Currently, it's still true today that people in educated circles find "could care less" and "irregardless" to be ugly usage. I think there's good reason for that, but I don't plan to make a detailed analysis here. Steven Pinker's analysis notwithstanding, nothing in the linked comment is dispositive.
My original comment was not prescriptive. I do not claim to be the ultimate authority of the language because no such authority exists. It's hard for people to imagine, but what constitutes proper English is actually probabilistic. Some stuff is 75% good English and some stuff is 50% good English. Some idioms are more or less good English. I find the constructions under discussion to be less good, and my opinion carries the authority of my fraction of say-so as a member of the English using community.
But, frankly, I'm off track. My original point was to call attention to the inappropriate tone of one of the disputants, not participate in more natural language pedantry on the Internet.
While I hope not to open the entire can of worms to which codyrobbins referred, I strongly suspect "I could care less" is a shorter form of the more obviously ironic "like I could care less". Treated as straight-up irony, the usage makes perfect sense.
You lost your wager. I found it totally confusing, and only understood the meaning after reading the reply that explained the meaning is the opposite of the words.
I don't think the issue is whether language prudes are offended, but whether the communication is clear.
I, too, find yuor commnet a bit ofsnfevie. It's a cmmoon US iiodtimac epxresosin, that maeks lttlie snese if you try to itnreerpt it liolglacy. Most popele wlil be able to urnestdand this post frialy wlel too, ifrneirng minenag mnaes nhontig.
Edited to add: The original, British form, was "I couldn't care less".
Orthography and lexical choice are two different issues. Spelling has to be standardized to facilitate written communication—word choice doesn’t because words inherently have semantic content.
