4 ms·

If you think the phrase "dumpster fire" is the sum of its parts, then you don't know what it means. And if you don't know what it means, a dictionary can help.

by rspeer 9y ago

posterboy 9y ago
I think I pretty clearly showed that I understand what it means. The individual parts, each in a particular sense, dumb-store-burning, explain the sense rather well. If this is not readily obvious to a recipient, then it's misused and no dictionary can help that, if enough misuse occurs. But don't get me wrong, I have a dictionary under my pillow (my phone). On the other hand, obscurity might be intentional, so popularization (by inclusion in a dictionary and making a big fuzz about it in the news no less), will only drive the invention of new obscure terms. Which is probably a delight for every dictionary editor. And I choose to largely ignore it and fuel the topic with flame bait, probably because the term in question is negative in principle, eliciting negative emotions.
- rspeer 9y ago
  You've shown that you misunderstand the term. Your misunderstanding includes nonsense examples like "those dictionaries are a dumpster fire". Nobody else would say that. The "dumb-store-burning" thing is something you made up and you've already managed to convince yourself it's the real definition. Folk etymologies are never a good way to define a term, but this one is particularly weird and out of nowhere.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    > Nobody else would say that. calibrate your sarcasm detector, it's broken. I know what a dumpster fire is in the broadest sense, a shit show, a farce, perhaps a tire fire that is toxic and impossible to extinguish. The rhyme on dumb I think is certainly effective. Sure, it's my own observation. > you've already managed to convince yourself it's the real definition I prefer to speak with authority and leave my guesswork implicit. Mistakes I make then are problematic. I'm not above mistakes, so the assumption that I might be wrong is implicit as well. That's only fair, in fact it seems the only way to speak with conviction if the other site asserts authority in the same way. I call it ''objective'', when I can avoid making ad-hominem arguments -- like you do. Rhetorical question: Are you enjoying that?

If you think the phrase "dumpster fire" is the sum of its parts, then you don't know what it means. And if you don't know what it means, a dictionary can help.

by rspeer 9y ago

If you think the phrase "dumpster fire" is the sum of its parts, then you don't know what it means. And if you don't know what it means, a dictionary can help.

posterboy 9y ago

I think I pretty clearly showed that I understand what it means. The individual parts, each in a particular sense, dumb-store-burning, explain the sense rather well. If this is not readily obvious to a recipient, then it's misused and no dictionary can help that, if enough misuse occurs. But don't get me wrong, I have a dictionary under my pillow (my phone). On the other hand, obscurity might be intentional, so popularization (by inclusion in a dictionary and making a big fuzz about it in the news no less), will only drive the invention of new obscure terms. Which is probably a delight for every dictionary editor. And I choose to largely ignore it and fuel the topic with flame bait, probably because the term in question is negative in principle, eliciting negative emotions.

rspeer 9y ago
You've shown that you misunderstand the term. Your misunderstanding includes nonsense examples like "those dictionaries are a dumpster fire". Nobody else would say that. The "dumb-store-burning" thing is something you made up and you've already managed to convince yourself it's the real definition. Folk etymologies are never a good way to define a term, but this one is particularly weird and out of nowhere.
- posterboy 9y ago
  > Nobody else would say that. calibrate your sarcasm detector, it's broken. I know what a dumpster fire is in the broadest sense, a shit show, a farce, perhaps a tire fire that is toxic and impossible to extinguish. The rhyme on dumb I think is certainly effective. Sure, it's my own observation. > you've already managed to convince yourself it's the real definition I prefer to speak with authority and leave my guesswork implicit. Mistakes I make then are problematic. I'm not above mistakes, so the assumption that I might be wrong is implicit as well. That's only fair, in fact it seems the only way to speak with conviction if the other site asserts authority in the same way. I call it ''objective'', when I can avoid making ad-hominem arguments -- like you do. Rhetorical question: Are you enjoying that?