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.
Someone says that movie was cool. You protest that the movie wasn’t a ‘low but not freezing temperature’. You receive pushback for being a pedant. You:
I find it hilarious that being correct is being ignorant. It’s ok that you’re wrong, it’s your right.
Your last comment made such good progress. You recognised it was your failing to understand the language being spoken. You projected that lack onto everyone else by suggesting no-one could keep up. But you recognised it was a listener’s failure. Why the regression?
Communication is a co-operative tool. It is on the speaker to use language appropriate for the likely listeners true. Like an English speaker going into a rural Japanese restaurant and trying to order in English. The speaker did that, we all understood what was meant by ‘nazi’.
But also it is on the listener to learn the language likely to be spoken. Like an English speaker going into a rural Japanese restaurant and getting mad at everyone because everything is in Japanese. This is you, you are in an online ‘restaurant’ of a sort getting mad at everyone else for not speaking the language you speak, in the way you want to speak it. They aren’t incorrect, just using the appropriate language for the context they are in.
I’ll note that this main character syndrome that everyone else should conform to their way of speaking is common among English speakers.
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.
It was clear from the context. Notice how I keep making great emphasis on the context in which the words are being used. I was mocking you for a point made you made without thought coming back to bite you.
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.
Someone says that movie was cool. You protest that the movie wasn’t a ‘low but not freezing temperature’. You receive pushback for being a pedant. You:
Your last comment made such good progress. You recognised it was your failing to understand the language being spoken. You projected that lack onto everyone else by suggesting no-one could keep up. But you recognised it was a listener’s failure. Why the regression?
Communication is a co-operative tool. It is on the speaker to use language appropriate for the likely listeners true. Like an English speaker going into a rural Japanese restaurant and trying to order in English. The speaker did that, we all understood what was meant by ‘nazi’.
But also it is on the listener to learn the language likely to be spoken. Like an English speaker going into a rural Japanese restaurant and getting mad at everyone because everything is in Japanese. This is you, you are in an online ‘restaurant’ of a sort getting mad at everyone else for not speaking the language you speak, in the way you want to speak it. They aren’t incorrect, just using the appropriate language for the context they are in.
I’ll note that this main character syndrome that everyone else should conform to their way of speaking is common among English speakers.
It was clear from the context. Notice how I keep making great emphasis on the context in which the words are being used. I was mocking you for a point made you made without thought coming back to bite you.