11

So, my friend and I were chatting the other day. I, being a new father, sent him a picture of my clothesline completely full of my daughter's diapers. Then this dialogue happened:

My friend: Woah, babies are really poop factories.
Me: No shit.

Now, at that point, the chat spiraled out to a discussion on how wrong I was on using no shit on poop factory. Words such as "complete opposite" and "idioms, idiot" were uttered. I pointed my friend at the definition at thefreedictionary.com definition:

no shit (rude)

  1. something is very surprising and hard to believe He's coming here tonight? No shit!
  2. the truth This is no shit - we're going to have the money for you tomorrow.

He wouldn't have it. So, I turn to ELU as final arbiter. Was my response above correct or not?

Edit: After accepting the answer below, I notice that this question could use a better title. If you have a better idea on what should this question be titled, please edit it and remove this paragraph.

Improve this question
5
  • 15
    It works on a number of levels. As sarcasm, as proof of the cleanliness of the diapers in the picture, as irony... your friend is humorless.
    – anongoodnurse
    Sep 22, 2014 at 7:12
  • 6
    Yes, very witty. Clever extension of the metaphor. Definitely got a chuckle out of me.
    – polarysekt
    Sep 22, 2014 at 7:13
  • 2
    "When established idiom clashes with grammar, correctness is on the side of the idiom. Put another way, if sticking grimly to rules of grammar makes you sound like a pompous pedant, you are a pompous pedant." William Safire (1983) Not directly applicable to your scenario but you could easily substitute "logic" for "grammar".
    – Curtis H.
    Sep 22, 2014 at 19:22
  • @medica, my friend's sense of humor is actually about the same level as mine, which is why a) he's my friend, and b) the discussion went on for so long.
    – StorymasterQ
    Sep 23, 2014 at 0:20
  • Ah! My apologies. You are both humorless!
    – anongoodnurse
    Sep 23, 2014 at 0:41

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
11

Correct and appropriate.

Additionally No shit Sherlock ==> "You are stating the obvious"

which according to Wiktionary breaks down into

no shit (“an expression of amazement”) + Sherlock (“a fictional detective who makes ingenious deductions”)

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I'll accept this one. I originally wanted to add the Sherlock, but he wasn't much of a Sherlock :p
    – StorymasterQ
    Sep 23, 2014 at 0:21
1

As was already mentioned, no shit does in fact mean yes, exactly.

What is even better it's how you successfully managed to have the words no shit actually mean yes, a lot of shit. Whether you intended such a clever play on words or not you are indeed correct. I shit you not.

Improve this answer
0

Mplungjan has explained one sense in which your response was appropriate.

There is another too, though it does involve inserting a comma into your original formulation:

"No, shit".

Or perhaps (even more appropriately, given the topic) a colon:

"No: shit".

You would say this if you felt that shit was a more suitable word than poop to describe your child's excreta (for instance, because you are the type of person who believes in calling a spade a spade rather than a 'digging implement'). It also puns rather pleasingly on the idiom that Mplungjan described.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.