Putting words you don’t know the meaning of in the dictionary accompanied by an explanation of what those words mean? Woke nonsense, obviously.
I agree about the bees. Yes there is far more variation in other organisms than Humans. In biology homosexuality exists, but it means reproduction by same sex individuals. Not what Humans do when they are homosexual, that is rather social interaction from a biological Point of view.
deleted by creator
Sex in biology has a clear aim: genetic recombination. Everything in function of the recombination of 2 gametes can be considered sex in Biology.
(I think that only plasmid exchange is non sexual exchange of genetic information but eukaryotes don’t do that) A lof of social interactions in zoology however, we consider as sex or gender interactions in culture.
the messiness of sex, of others, other organisms, is just a perspective.
“Hope you’re ready to define words, dictionary” that’s their whole thing dude.
Also I would highly recommend anyone into anime to check out Fune wo Amu/The Great Passage. It’s an anime about the creation of a dictionary. It’s a pretty compelling love letter to the idea of language in general. I think I started watching it when it was airing thinking ‘this sounds boring as hell, they’ve gotta be cooking something if this got funded’ and they were.
Seconded on Fune Wo Amu.
If you are sick and tired of every single anime having the same Generic High School Protagonist, and not a single character over the age of 30, then Fune Wo Amu is a breath of fresh air as a show for adults that isn’t afraid to deviate from the usual formula, and tell a different kind of story.
12000? It’s over 20000! https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes
Sex is not the same in biology/science as it is in culture.
Sex in culture may be a choice, in biology it is a given. Sometimes a bad interpretation of facts.
Sexuality as in who or what you are sexually attracted to, not sex in what kind of anatomy you have.
Tfw a fungus has 20,000 times more sex than me
Sex is not the same in biology/science as it is in culture.
What do you mean? Why not?
Sex in culture may be a choice, in biology it is a given. Sometimes a bad interpretation of facts.
Are you talking about the act of sex? Bees can be considered to have 2 sexes but 3 genders, female bees are either a queen or a worker. Male bees are called drones. The female worker bees do not have sex.
If you mean genetic sex being a given, I’d bring up oxylotyls or the sex changes in frogs.
Sex is not a given in biology, it’s very messy and complicated, maybe even more so than in human culture.
Merriam dgaf. Their job is to figure out what words people are using, and document them. People could invent the word “bumblesausagecock” and if it caught on, they would add it.
That would be such a bumblesausagecock thing to do
They definitely get bumblesausagecocked for doing that.
If I were to invent a meaning for this, it would be a well-endowed man who is a drop-kick in most other respects
I imagine it to be a terrible plan that you force through even though it’s obviously going to shit but you’re too committed to stop now.
Like the concept of sunk cost, but more willful, stubborn, and incompetent.
Exactly. Dictionaries are descriptive tools, not prescriptive.
I generally agree, though there’s cases where you want to be selective with what you’re describing. This Low Saxon dictionary, for example, has a policy of not listing loans and calques from Dutch, German, or English unless they’ve been well-established, doubly so if there’s an already existing Low Saxon word which fits the bill.
The justification is that the language is in a vulnerable state with native proficiency having jumped at least a full generation so many speakers’ vocabulary is lacking. E.g. my repertoire of words for plants and animals in Low Saxon is negligible, so in speech I have to improvise i.e. use a loan. I occasionally look stuff up and I don’t want to find the loan I just used listed, giving it dictionary blessing would amount to aiding and abetting the decline of the language. Why the hell would anyone want to aid and abet the sidelining of wonderful words like Huulbessen, “howl broom”.
That exception makes sense. Both because their prescription isn’t in the dictionary itself, but rather in their choice of scope for it, and because it’s trying to protect a threatened variety, instead of just creating some meaningless division (like plenty prescriptions do).
variety
Language! High German may have an army but we have the fleet.
More seriously if you class Low Saxon as a non-standard variety of Standard German and then have a look at the family tree you’d have, for the sake of consistency, call English a German variety. Sure they’re all West Germanic languages but we need taxa for the taxonomy god: Low Saxon is more closely related to the Anglo-Frisian languages than to the Allemannic/Bavarian line, which is where Standard German stems from.
Tell that to the French
A lot of language communities have that almost superstitious belief that “if it is not in the dictionary, you shouldn’t be using it”. Not just the French. (inb4 I’ll keep using “tabarnak” even if it’s not there. Fite me!)
La langue est une anarchie, pas une tyrannie
di sa pour l´academi.
je ne parl pa frances sinon anarquistement.
I’d argue that dictionaries should be prescriptive, with systems in place for modification as language changes and semantics shift.
Case in point: the word “literally” now being its own antonym.
Literally was literally used as a figurative intensifier from basically the first moment it stopped meaning “of or pertaining to letters”.
English is full of contronyms. We even have a special word for them.
No one complains about “dust” having two contradicting meanings (apply or remove a powder), or “original” meaning “traditional” or “novel”.
What should the dictionary do when the people who use the language start using it in a way the dictionary says is wrong? Does the dictionary just ignore the language and insist that dusting only means to apply powder, and original only means new?
Communication is better facilitated by describing how language is used and trusting the listener and speaker to use context to convey meaning unambiguously.
I don’t need the dictionary to tell me I’m not being asked to put powdered sugar on the mantle, or that someone isn’t sharing their grandmother’s newly created, bespoke recipe they invented for their family.Nah, it’s the wrong tool for that. Eventually both goals (to register and dictate usage) enter in conflict, so you end doing a sloppy job at one or both.
Plus a lot of prescriptions are that sort of silly “muh tradishun” thing; it’s only there to reinforce oppression - because rich people, unlike poor people, have the luxury to spend their time learning older varieties of their language, instead of working to their bones. And the exceptions (e.g. prescribing against slurs) are easy to handle through guides.
So why do people only get up in arms over literally? Because it’s the one they lived through? Here’s a bunch of words I’m sure you’re mostly, if not entirely fine with the dictionary listing their “new”, opposite meaning, and probably use them the new way too. That’s just off hand. There will be more if you google it.
You can’t force the entire world to strictly follow a book on how words should be used. People are going to talk how they like. You can document how people are using words. That’s what makes sense to do.
Awful
Original: Full of awe or inspiring reverence.
Now: Very bad or unpleasant.
Terrific
Original: Causing terror or fear.
Now: Excellent or great.
Egregious
Original: Remarkably good or distinguished.
Now: Shockingly bad.
Disinterested
Original: Unbiased, impartial.
Now: Uninterested, not caring.
Nonplussed
Original: Bewildered, perplexed.
Now: Unfazed or unimpressed.
So why do people only get up in arms over literally? Because it’s the one they lived through?
They didn’t live through it. It has been used an an exaggeration for more than a century.
Yes but not widely, and the point is, most people don’t even know awful had a different definition. Argue all you want but the fact there’s any controversy over literally shows we’re living through the main transition of it having one main definition to two.
Good point. I am slightly salty about flammable and inflammable though.
That one can be a dangerous misunderstanding.
And how would you enforce that? Are you going to personally walk around the world hitting every person you disagree with in the face with a dictionary? And you think that will work?
Language is largely not prescriptive, no matter how much people want it to be. Prescriptivism is like holding your hand out to stop a river, it completely misunderstands how language flows over time.
A language simply “is”. If you’re trying to tell people what it is, you’re being descriptive; if you tell them how it should be, you’re being prescriptive. Both things have their place, even if linguists (when studying a language) focus on one to the detriment of other.
The problem is that short-sighted prescriptions are so bloody common that they take the spotlight from more reasonable things like “don’t use slurs, you’re demeaning people” or “write in a way suitable for your target audience”, etc.
Yes, this. Nobody came along and decreed the dictionary was descriptive - which would itself be a prescriptivist view of the world - it just is.
Linguistics rejected prescriptivism because it is a failed model of reality. I think the reason so many people cling to a prescriptive model is because in school we were taught obedience above all else, which is a terrible way of educating people, but maybe it helps to maintain a subservient class of workers.
Then what’s the point of teaching language to children in school?
Depends on what you mean by that. I’m not a linguist, but I’ve heard a lot of them speak, so I hope someone more qualified will correct me where I am wrong.
At an early age language needs to be taught in it’s present localized state to give a base structure for learning. With that language learning we need to teach structure of language locally and also more generally. Later in their learning, if we taught everyone in society the reality that linguists already know, that language changes and evolves over time and place, and teach language basics like how language itself works, we see better outcomes. The worst outcomes we see in language learning is when we teach only rote memorization of sounds, spelling, and rigid grammar. We can still teach that stuff, but it needs to be taught along side general language structures, language theory, and an understanding of practical realities to see better outcomes.
Whatever we do, language will always change rapidly over time. It’s better to teach in a way that prepares people for the fluidity of language, than to teach people only the rigid structures that will inevitably change.
I recently had a conversation with someone 1/3 my age. Allegedly, we both spoke english. Neither of us understood a damn thing the other said. I know this is an extreme example, and not representative of most contexts, but I think it’s worth looking at as an extreme example of how lack of language prescription can go horribly wrong.
Here’s a bunch of words that either didn’t exist at all, or didn’t exist in their current form/meaning when you were growing up:
smartphone, app, emoji, meme, livestream, crowdfunding, cryptocurrency, blockchain, NFT, ransomware, selfie, vlog, podcast, cloud computing, Al, algorithmic bias, social distancing, contact tracing, microaggression, cancel culture, virtue signalling, gamification, enshitification, deepfake, influencer, cybersecurity, carbon footprint, microplastic, drone, smart home, loT, cryptocurrency, biohacking, wearable, crowdsourcing, clickbait.
But I bet you could understand someone that used most if not all of those words right? Because you learnt them, even after adulthood? You can learn and understand these new words too.
Also I find it incredibly hard to believe they couldn’t understand you. Even if the young generation uses a ton of slang with each other, they interact with teachers, parents, grandparents, media such as TV and movies etc I could go on. Unless you were intentionally using very old or foreign slang heavily I find it near unthinkable they actually couldn’t understand you.
Edit: I just noticed you’re the same person I replied to in another comment. I wanna be clear I wasn’t seeking you out or something, I barely look at user names, it was coincidence.
No cap?
Eh, kinda how the dictionary needs to work. It’s meant to be used to understand the language, so the dictionary can’t hold strong opinions and argue against how it’s used and remain useful.
I.E. Let’s say English is my second language, and I read something like “OMG I would literally kill myself.” And I go look up “literally” I’m a dictionary. If the very common antonym usage of it isn’t listed as a second definition, I’ll totally misunderstand.
So as much as we may not love that a word is flipping to mean its opposite, it is what it is and it’s not the role of the dictionary to take up that fight.
Take up what fight? I just checked two dictionaries and both note that literally can be used as a simple intensifier
Oh, I mean the “fight” the person I’m replying to is suggesting, that dictionaries should be prescriptive (state how English should be, in this case arguing that “literal” shouldn’t be a valid word to use when you’re not being literal in the traditional sense), versus being descriptive (what dictionaries currently are, describing the language as it’s used without any assertions about how it “should” be).
Dictionaries have been adamantly descriptive since their inception, so they’re not at all doing what glitchdx is suggesting (thus literal having a secondary definition as an intensifier), and I’m arguing for the status quo.
The word ‘thing’ refers to a council of elders and NAUGHT ELSE
Dictionaries are - by definition - descriptive. It is not their duty to judge what goes into them. They merely collected terms used by people and explain what they mean.
Demanding to remove information from a dictionary, because you do not like what it expresses or the people who use those terms, is the very definition of censorship.
Dictionaries are - by definition - descriptive. It is not their duty to judge what goes into them. They merely collected terms used by people and explain what they mean.
Demanding to remove information from a dictionary, because you do not like what it expresses or the people who use those terms, is the very definition of censorship.
Aha! Who defined that? Big Dictionary, that’s who.
If Big Dictionary wasnt evil, Why would they call a dictionary “DOOM”
down with big dic!
Me? I am impartial, I am certainly not being paid by Big Dictionary!
*attempts to hide the old, dusty Oxford English Dictionary on the bookshelf
Also a very ham handed attempt to manipulate culture.
Or perhaps people who have had their culture manipulated running face first in to something outside their sphere and getting angry that it doesn’t comport with their manipulated understanding.
Dictionaries are - by definition - descriptive. It is not their duty to judge what goes into them. They merely collected terms used by people and explain what they mean.
You would get banned off a conservative subreddit for saying this.
Censorship isn’t when we get rid of woke books like the dictionary dummy, censorship is when I don’t get to say a slur without anyone getting mad at me.
Making people mad is the point for many, I’m afraid
This is why the idea of gender needs to disappear eventually. If we have it, we then need to label every single permutation of every expression. Maybe that’s fun for some people, but it’s definitely not fun for me.
To be clear I’m not saying you can’t be a woman or a man or whatever. I understand I have to pay that tax. But in 200 years maybe it won’t matter anymore because we’ll all just be people. And that seems nice to me.
That’s like saying we need to get rid of all color names since there are so many hues and shades. What are chartreuse and fuchsia? Better just get rid of green and purple since there are so many colors.
All we need are hex codes and rgb!
What if I want violet?
ee82ee?
I’m giving this the #00ff00 light
My gender is 0xffffff
Actually no, that’s not what they said. They said sure you can have green, but not everything has to be green, blue, or red.
Also, purple is a lie.
The difference is you don’t need to identify someone’s color or commit a social faux pas. Keep your color names, I just don’t want to have to figure out if you are green or lime green and address you as such.
It’s not necessarily a social faux pas to misgender someone, that’s a myth made up by conservatives. It’s a faux pas to intentionally misgender people.
Sorta like if you call someone Jeb and they correct you and say it’s Jed. It only becomes an issue if you insist on calling them Jeb.
Fair, but I don’t want every social interaction I have to be me messing up and apologizing to people that I have missgendered them. That sounds way more exhausting than current social interactions are for me, and I already find them exhausting.
I hear you saying you you would like a universal gender neutral pronoun. You rarely need to know someone’s gender when talking to them, just what pronouns to use.
Fortunately they/them works for this purpose, and is universally understood in English. It’s perfectly acceptable to refer to someone as they/them or their name when having a conversation not specifically about gender and preferred pronouns.Not knowing someone’s gender has existed far longer than our modern understanding of the nuance of the concept.
Yes, this is what I mean. I am fine with they/them. I don’t need to know anyone’s specific pronouns or gender.
But if no one needs to know anyone’s specific pronouns or gender, then why have it as a concept other than as a niche topic of discussion?
It’s not irrelevant to everyone. We have a phrase that allows you to omit them, but that doesn’t mean that everyone wants to do that.
Additionally, having the concept is needed for people to talk about their experiences and figure stuff out.
Their need to describe themselves in conversations that don’t involve you is perfectly sufficient reason to have the words.“Confuses you” is not a good enough reason to invalidate a core part of people’s identity, particularly when it may have been hard for them to get things figured out.
It’s important to remember that gender is irrelevant, but only if it’s someone else’s. It can be aggravating to be told that something you worked hard to figure out doesn’t matter when it very much matters to you.
I mean it wouldn’t be every social interaction. Not even a majority. Something like 2% of the population identifies as something other than their assigned gender at birth, and the majority of those are transgender individuals who make it very clear how they want to be referred to.
Understand that these people will continue to have the same gender identity whether you understand it or not. The alternative to apologizing to people when you misgender them is… not apologizing for it.
Yeah today. But we know gender is a made-up category now. And already it’s starting to diverge. I can easily imagine 20 years from now there being like 50 different genders, and the amount of people who don’t associate with men or women will be much greater.
You do that already, and it’s even worse actually because everyone has an even more individual and sometimes difficult to remember thing about them you have to balance in a social situation. It’s called a name. You have to be told it, you can easily forget it, and it’s a social slight to call someone the wrong name. Right now gender expression feels uncomfortable to have to tell people because of the politisation and stigma pressed on it, but it doesn’t have to be anything different than asking for someone’s name to better address them.
Yeah but I’m okay with names. I’m not okay with genders. At a bare minimum to interact with people in society, you need to know a name, some kind of identifier. If I knew of a way around that I would suggest it. However, interacting with people in society does not require knowing their gender. At least now it doesn’t require it as it’s pretty clear that gender is a made-up category.
Not really. Like with music, some labels are broader than others. “Oh you like rock? Rock & Roll, Glam Rock, Hard Rock, Metal?” “Oh what kind of Metal, Trash, Death, Symphonic.”
The broader terms existing does not negate the more precise terms and visa versa.
I think the broader argument tends to boil down to the fact that unlike music, which people can simply not engage in describing on a regular basis, gender expression is something that requires much more active participation by all members of a society, and that gender is not inherently separate from the rest of the human experience.
It’s already hard enough for some people to remember names, now imagine having to remember which of any number of thousands of neopronouns each individual person you know uses, for example.
Contrast that with their “we’ll all just be people” stance, which seems to just be a different wording of gender abolition, and you have a world where people simply express themselves as they are without having to increasingly sublabel.
It’s like how while people can have long hair and short hair, wear dark clothes and light clothes, have blue/brown/green/gray/etc eyes, be introverted or extroverted, have a large or small social battery, or experience and display any number of different characteristics, while not having to actually label those characteristics in general conversation or identification.
They’re simply traits within the human experience, but not traits that we have to outwardly label and display on a very frequent basis, unlike the way we usually talk about gender. This is especially important considering how every single human being experiences things even a little differently from one another, thus meaning that the number of sublabels is theoretically as large, if not larger than the current population of the earth.
I don’t deny that the labels can still exist, and be useful to people, but I think gender is often treated as if it has to be some sort of mythical separate part of the brain, independent from all the other variations in human experience, and thus it must have a separate label at all times, even while we don’t particularly care to label and identify with other characteristics that are also within the human experience, some of which have historically flowed between being considered very gendered or less/not gendered, such as assorted personality traits, length of hair, preferred social activities and groups, certain clothing, etc.
unlike music, which people can simply not engage in describing on a regular basis, gender expression is something that requires much more active participation by all members of a society
Does it though?
I really don’t care how people express as long as they aren’t dicks and fascists about it.
I might be caught off guard sometimes, like the legitimately cute trans with the very male surfer dude voice at the train station the other day, but that’s not the same as giving a damn about it.
Does it though?
I’d say so, yeah, but it does depend on your social circumstance, and of course broader cultures have different norms and linguistic styles too, so that can definitely impact it somewhat.
For example, if you’re referring to someone, you pretty much have to use their pronouns. That’s just how our language works, and it’s not exactly something you can easily avoid.
The broader argument around gender abolition typically doesn’t focus on the fact that society has to use the assorted gendered terms and traits though, I just thought it would be interesting to point out.
Generally speaking, it boils down to the second part of my previous point, which was that gender isn’t inherently that special compared to many of the other ways we interpret and express our own identities, and the category can theoretically expand to levels so broad that it simply doesn’t create much of a practical utility around consistently creating, using, and assigning sub-labels and further slicing up what we consider to be distinct categories into smaller and smaller pieces.
Additionally, gender abolitionists tend to just believe that by creating categories, you end up restricting what people are comfortable doing, and impose assumptions that could otherwise be more freeing to simply not have.
Anyone who currently uses any label, big or small, could still express themselves in a society that doesn’t choose to use labels, but anyone feeling restricted by the labels we use today would no longer have that pressure facing them, and could thus develop more independently and freely as themselves, rather than what any societal categories impose on them.
This is actually something I think is becoming more and more pertinent as the acceptance of trans individuals grows, because as I’m sure you’ve probably seen, a lot of trans people feel that they have to meet certain goals to simply be accepted as who they are, to the point that they can feel pressured by society into doing things like buying certain clothes they otherwise may not have picked, spending more time worrying about the way their face looks, etc, just to be accepted.
And with sub-labels, you end up running into the same problem, but at a different scale, where small communities, or even sole individuals, can end up locking themselves into choices about their looks/mannerisms/activities/etc because after defining something, it becomes easier to conform to it even if you change over time outside of that label.
Obviously I don’t speak for everyone here, and this is just my opinion, but I personally believe that a world with no labels, and much less limited avenues for free expression by every individual would be preferable to a world where it’s expected that you label yourself and put yourself in a box, a category that people can define you as, that may not fully represent you as a person.
we’ll all just be people.
Very optimistic of you. Oh well, I guess we need this kind of positive messaging in 2025.
I think it’s awfully optimistic of you to think 200 years would be enough to erase gender bias even if most of society went into it with good intentions. Categorizing is too deep an instinct. It’s easier for most people to add categories to the 2 most of us were taught as infants than to erase the concept entirely.
I suppose you could use they/them for everyone, to acknowledge the othergender aspects of them that may not be apparent or recognized by anyone including themselves.
But you’d piss a lot of people off.
Then again, that might be a good thing.
My hope is that most of the pissed off people would be dead due to natural causes.
Personally, i wouldn’t be too pleased to take a bird home and find out she has a penis twice the size of mine.
Jokes aside, with no offence intended, how can I as a person attracted to breasts and vaginas, know what i’m getting into when I’m talking to someone. I don’t want to lead someone on but at the same time i don’t want to be led on.
or am i confusing sex and gender again? I’m honestly trying but i’m by no means fluent on the topic.
Sex is defined by genetics
Gender is defined by you
I think if you’re interested in dating or sex, and you have preferences that are deal breakers. Ask for what they’re equipped with.
Similar to how if you’re planning on dating someone today and if have sex is important to you. You communicate that. And ask them if they are asexual.
It’s perfectly okay to have deal-breaking preferences for these things.
Good question.
Ask for what they’re equipped with.
Thanks for this, I think your advice is the most practical for a variaty of situations.
I’m so glad you said breasts!! Come with me on an exploratory walk:
Let’s say you fall for a woman. You’re getting intimate and she stops you to tell you something serious. See, she hasn’t been honest about her body with you. She hasn’t dated in awhile and didn’t know when the right time was to tell you, but she wants you so much that it can’t be avoided now.
She had her breasts removed for an unspecified medical reason. You thought she had a great rack, but those were prosthetics. Despite her biological circumstances he happens to identify with having breasts and prosthetics make her feel confident and normal.
Has there been deception? Have you been led on? I don’t think so, I think this was this just part of learning whether you’re compatible with someone. Only you know whether the absence of breasts is a deal breaker for you, and you get to decide freely in that moment.
Does that help?
I don’t think there was any deception because she has been straight up and honest. I think you’ve helped me to understand.
Sex: not binary, a lot more confusing the more scientific you make it. Can absolutely be changed. It’s coming up on being an outdated term pretty quickly, if not irrelevant already. Probably the least understood term by 99.999999% of people.
Gender: binary exists, a lot of people exist outside of it, too. Also dynamic and fluid. It’s the role you play, socially. A lot of people think it should be eliminated. I’m personally on the fence on that. (Bonus: gender expression: is not the same as gender. Gender is who one is, gender expression is how one does it.)
SexUALITY: may be what you’re confused on. Is defined by the term sex, but generally refers to the sex of you and the sex of who you’re into. Which, if you go by what “sex” means, gets confusing really fast.
So stop worrying about labels, go with the flow, and since life is too short as it is, stop letting society tell you things that you like are acceptable, and if you find it pretty and it feels good and you aren’t hurting anybody AND there’s consent of all parties involved, GO FOR IT.
I think I’m forgetting stuff here, but the gist is to stop being afraid and stop judging and hating. Accept your ignorance, accept humility, and stop being afraid of learning. Nobody’s coming to get you besides the fascists and maybe the tankies.
Ok my morning dump is over gotta wipe have a nice day.
Sex is what’s in your pants, gender is how you look.
This just reminds me of the shitpost of humans/aliens.
It was a “fancy” bathroom sign for men and women.
These people really don’t have two braincells to rub together, do they?
A brain… what? Is that another gender you just made up!? 😠
Incel?
Brains are too woke
Get you a sleepy brain
Go back to sleep sheeple
Most of the time they’re just lying about things like this.
Only one lonely braincel
Now I love you even more Merriam Webster<3
I really don’t understand why anyone would get mad over any word being added to the dictionary unless the definition is obviously biased. I remember giggling at the profanity and racial slurs in the dictionary when I was a kid and nobody was upset about that as far as I know.
We have to understand that to the conservative mind, the very notion of “bias” doesn’t make sense because it implies a relative difference between perspectives.
I say this also about the idea of conservative “punching down” in that to them, the concept is nonsense. They do not live in the same world we do. To them there is only “punching.” If there’s a threat, “punch” at it. They don’t recognize or understand the idea of class or privilege, there is only “how I feel at this moment.” And as depressing as it is to understand, it’s literally the only thing they can grasp. Linear thinking.
We have a whole giant chunk of the population who have never been taught how to use language to reshape perspectives in their head, and as such, live in a linear world where there is only a “now” feeling and the means in which that feeling must be attacked or defended.
This is why it’s utterly bonkers people keep trying to argue with them from a place of consistency, going “that’s hypocritical!” like they even grasp it. They will say it back to you like it’s just an insult, not what it represents. This is why you see them all saying the same buzzwords back at you. “You’re the weird one!” “You’re the nazi!” “You’re the fascist!” they don’t know or care what the words mean, it’s punching and that’s all that matters.
I strongly feel if we, all of us who have functional frontal lobes and language centers, understood this better we would be far better at shaping the public narrative and not making it worse by arguing nonsense they don’t understand.
At least, it would have been but we let it go for too long and now they own the country and are pillaging our coffers and the next generation of kids is going to have even worse language skills and comprehension because they’re going to be educated in churches and private schools that teach the importance of spirit and herbs and how the blacks started the civil war.
Agreed. With the continued erosion of education, the onslaught of mis/disinformation, the hijacking of our brain chemistry, and the general constant anxiety of trying to exist under late stage capitalism, it’s going to keep getting worse.
I remember giggling at the profanity and racial slurs in the dictionary when I was a kid and nobody was upset about that as far as I know.
Hey it is me JD Vance, I was and still am upset, kids giggling reminds me other people experience joy and love and then I start to feel like an empty monster.
I hear fucking a couch is a great way to relieve stress, and feel better, you ever tried that?
Yes yes I do of course but I am afraid the couches are getting woke and will start demanding all the same silly stuff women get upset at me about.
Earlier after I lay in post-couchital bliss with a lover she started harassing me about how I don’t think God intended couches to wear covers that denied members access to their inner folds. I had to scream at her that Jesus only intended this for masculine reclining chairs that must have their vulnerable orifices protected and that femine couches are only penetrated when they want to be.
Why won’t anyone listen to me, I am the Vice President Of The United States!?! Don’t I deserve respect? I am pretty sure the law says people have to respect me even International Law at the UN does, this isn’t fair.
I started reading this link for the lazy: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genderqueer
And found this pretty darn good article for clueless but well-meaning people who want to learn and support their kid/grandkid/friend:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/merriam-websters-short-list-of-gender-and-identity-terms
I thought trans classified as genderqueer, guess my genderqueer license just got revoked 😔
Trans is a broad category. It does include those who are genderqueer, but also those who are not.
Some trans people are nonbinary, seeing themselves as something other than fully male or female. The term genderqueer is probably an accurate description for them.
Other trans people are binary, seeing themselves as fully male or female, despite the circumstances of their births. As a binary trans woman, I do not consider myself to be genderqueer, as the aspects in which I am not female are an error that I am working very hard to correct!
Queer in the literal/archaic sense
I found a HuffPo article linking to the original Twitter post (link to bad place) in case anyone wanted to verify this was legit before sharing.
You can change any x link to xcancel to be able to view the content without giving musk the traffic stats: https://xcancel.com/MerriamWebster/status/724645568014868480
“In reply to” is breaking my brain. Has it always been phrased like that on twitter? I feel like “replying to” or ”in response to” would be clear whereas I’m only able to make sense of “in reply to” if I infer the elision of an article. That said, even “in a reply to” would make more sense when introducing a quote or excerpt from the reply.
Unless I’m just experiencing semantic satiation because I’ve been repeating it to myself in confusion.
response and reply are synonyms in your example. does “in a response to” sound better?
“In a response to” also works, but it has the same quote connotation for me that “in a reply to” has. I think “in response” feels like an established term to me that has a separate meaning from “in” + “response,” so substituting “reply” for “response” doesn’t work for me.
Interestingly, although the Cambridge dictionary includes references to each (meaning “in reply to” is formally accepted English [funnily enough, I can understand the second usage there, for very formal written correspondence]), there’s only a full page for “in response to.”
