Like i said. Some Zionists are fascists, but can’t be nazis. By definition. When you start to throw words around that doesn’t mean what you think they mean, they will eventually stop having any meaning at all.
Perhaps if you studied the history and origins of nazism you’d think differently. When you call people nazis, that really aren’t nazis, then you just rob it of meaning.
The fact that sarcastic irony has twisted the meaning of a word faster during this age than should have been possible, only enforced my belief that the meaning of words are important. Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.
You are doubly wrong, distinctions between right-wing authoritarians isn’t important in this context.
Words do not lose meaning, they change and are understood through context. I gave you an example already:
When I use the word ‘literally’ in a sentence I do not have to explain my definiton (literally/figurativly) being used.
Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.
See above, if you had read my earlier comment you wouldn’t have wasted your, or my time with this. You have used the word ‘literally’ (I presume). You have heard the word ‘literally’ being used. You already knew your paragraph was untrue, you’re just saying stuff at this point.
Deeper explanation. ‘nazi’ and ‘facist’ in causal contexts (like this one) can be understood as ‘right wing authoritarian’. In other contexts they can’t be place holders, discussing ww2 for example. But here, now, they can and are. It’s understood, through context, which right wing authoritarian is meant.
Thats all well and good. But you’re wrong.
Nazi is a type of fascist.
Zionist is a different type of fascist.
So by mixing them up you are simplifying in a manner that is reductive and wrong. It would be akin to using maoist and anarchist interchangeably because they are economically “left”.
What’s all well and good? I see no evidence you are listening, and some direct evidence that you are not.
Once again, you are railing against how the English language works, and has always worked.
‘Literally’ means both ‘literally’ and it’s opposite ‘figuratively’. People using ‘literally’ to mean figuratively aren’t wrong to do so. They don’t need to, as you suggest, define their usage of the word when using it. It’s understood. Once you understand a word can be expanded to mean its opposite, and people use it just fine, this expansion of ‘nazi’ should be a breeze.
In the current zeitgeist, it is understood, that in casual settings, ‘nazi’ is used to mean ‘right wing authoritarian’. Get all upset if you wish, there’s a long history of people being upset about time’s effect on language, I’m sure you can remember your grandparents clutching pearls at the slang and short hand you used growing up. You don’t have to like it, English doesn’t care. Keep up, or don’t, up to you. For what it’s worth, I’m one of the few people I know that still say ‘whom’ I type it less and less and I certainly don’t “correct” people who don’t because their lack of usage is correct now.
So don’t use ‘nazi’ that way, no-one is forcing you.
‘Do you know the saying that movie was cool.’ You know they aren’t saying ‘the movie was a low but not freezing temperature.’
So here’s someone complaining about the use of ‘cool’ and they say ‘I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist’.
Just imagine the scenario, some people talking about a film, someone says it’s cool, and here you come charging in with your pedantry. No-one is talking about the film anymore, because you’re arguing about the usage of the word cool. Then you go full sanctimonious and say “I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist”. Is that a sufficient mirror for you.
Just because technology has created micro universes where word change meaning faster than anyone can follow, doesn’t mean they are right.
Faster than anyone can follow? I followed it. Everyone in this thread followed it. It only seemed to be you out of the loop. That’s fine, but you didn’t have to expose your ignorance so publicly. You’ll pick up the lingo eventually.
Or to put it more sarcastically so you have something to think about. I literally don’t care, literally.
But you didn’t explain how you were using each version of literally?! Thereby proving your earlier complaint “that it would render words meaningless” incorrect. If nothing else I am glad I could have taught you that much. Maybe if I was able to teach you that people don’t have to spend all their time explaining definitions, I can teach you how silly pedantry is.
Faster than anyone can follow? I followed it. Everyone in this thread followed it. It only seemed to be you out of the loop. That’s fine, but you didn’t have to expose your ignorance so publicly. You’ll pick up the lingo eventually.
I find it hilarious that being correct is being ignorant. It’s ok that you’re wrong, it’s your right.
But you do care though, you obviously care.
Of course i do, but since it’s not clear from language that I do due to the reasons that I laid out, I understand that you’re confused. See how language is confusing when words change meaning? Oh, the irony.
Like i said. Some Zionists are fascists, but can’t be nazis. By definition. When you start to throw words around that doesn’t mean what you think they mean, they will eventually stop having any meaning at all.
Pedantry separating out one right wing authoritarian from another isn’t helpful in this context. Maybe in others, but not in this one
Also, language has always evolved, the words didn’t ‘lose meaning’ they changed meaning. ‘Literally’ became an antonym, it’s fine.
So you’re doubly wrong. Wrong for being a pedant, and wrong for your stated reason for pedantry.
Perhaps if you studied the history and origins of nazism you’d think differently. When you call people nazis, that really aren’t nazis, then you just rob it of meaning.
The fact that sarcastic irony has twisted the meaning of a word faster during this age than should have been possible, only enforced my belief that the meaning of words are important. Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.
You are doubly wrong, distinctions between right-wing authoritarians isn’t important in this context.
Words do not lose meaning, they change and are understood through context. I gave you an example already:
When I use the word ‘literally’ in a sentence I do not have to explain my definiton (literally/figurativly) being used.
See above, if you had read my earlier comment you wouldn’t have wasted your, or my time with this. You have used the word ‘literally’ (I presume). You have heard the word ‘literally’ being used. You already knew your paragraph was untrue, you’re just saying stuff at this point.
Deeper explanation. ‘nazi’ and ‘facist’ in causal contexts (like this one) can be understood as ‘right wing authoritarian’. In other contexts they can’t be place holders, discussing ww2 for example. But here, now, they can and are. It’s understood, through context, which right wing authoritarian is meant.
Thats all well and good. But you’re wrong. Nazi is a type of fascist. Zionist is a different type of fascist.
So by mixing them up you are simplifying in a manner that is reductive and wrong. It would be akin to using maoist and anarchist interchangeably because they are economically “left”.
What’s all well and good? I see no evidence you are listening, and some direct evidence that you are not.
Once again, you are railing against how the English language works, and has always worked.
‘Literally’ means both ‘literally’ and it’s opposite ‘figuratively’. People using ‘literally’ to mean figuratively aren’t wrong to do so. They don’t need to, as you suggest, define their usage of the word when using it. It’s understood. Once you understand a word can be expanded to mean its opposite, and people use it just fine, this expansion of ‘nazi’ should be a breeze.
In the current zeitgeist, it is understood, that in casual settings, ‘nazi’ is used to mean ‘right wing authoritarian’. Get all upset if you wish, there’s a long history of people being upset about time’s effect on language, I’m sure you can remember your grandparents clutching pearls at the slang and short hand you used growing up. You don’t have to like it, English doesn’t care. Keep up, or don’t, up to you. For what it’s worth, I’m one of the few people I know that still say ‘whom’ I type it less and less and I certainly don’t “correct” people who don’t because their lack of usage is correct now.
All you are doing is pettifogging.
You know the old adage “you wouldn’t follow your friend of a cliff if he jumped”.
I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist.
Just because technology has created micro universes where word change meaning faster than anyone can follow, doesn’t mean they are right.
Or to put it more sarcastically so you have something to think about. I literally don’t care, literally.
So don’t use ‘nazi’ that way, no-one is forcing you.
‘Do you know the saying that movie was cool.’ You know they aren’t saying ‘the movie was a low but not freezing temperature.’
So here’s someone complaining about the use of ‘cool’ and they say ‘I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist’.
Just imagine the scenario, some people talking about a film, someone says it’s cool, and here you come charging in with your pedantry. No-one is talking about the film anymore, because you’re arguing about the usage of the word cool. Then you go full sanctimonious and say “I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist”. Is that a sufficient mirror for you.
Faster than anyone can follow? I followed it. Everyone in this thread followed it. It only seemed to be you out of the loop. That’s fine, but you didn’t have to expose your ignorance so publicly. You’ll pick up the lingo eventually.
But you didn’t explain how you were using each version of literally?! Thereby proving your earlier complaint “that it would render words meaningless” incorrect. If nothing else I am glad I could have taught you that much. Maybe if I was able to teach you that people don’t have to spend all their time explaining definitions, I can teach you how silly pedantry is.
But you do care though, you obviously care.
I find it hilarious that being correct is being ignorant. It’s ok that you’re wrong, it’s your right.
Of course i do, but since it’s not clear from language that I do due to the reasons that I laid out, I understand that you’re confused. See how language is confusing when words change meaning? Oh, the irony.