4 ms·
Linguistic prescriptivism adds no substance to an argument, it just wastes time on the fact that different people have different definitions. Try descriptivism
by jamescostian 8y ago
Linguistic prescriptivism adds no substance to an argument, it just wastes time on the fact that different people have different definitions. Try descriptivism out - instead of telling people what a word means, understand what they mean when they say a word (ignoring the fact that you disagree with their usage of that word), and argue against the substance of their message
- judofyr 8y agoSubstance of their message? I’m sorry, but when people comment nothing more than “That’s racist”, there’s not much substance. My comment was an attempt at encouraging people to post actual arguments, and not just shout out their feelings.
- jamescostian 8y agoI agree that when people say "that's racist" there isn't much substance, if any. I also support this fund and am having trouble finding any real arguments against it in this whole thread - indeed, a lot of people just say "that's racist" and move on. I applaud asking for actual arguments, I just really hate all the arguments that are about what the words racism, racist, sexism, sexist, etc. mean.
- judofyr 8y agoYeah, and I do see that my comment ends up being yet another comment that's not about the article. I guess I could've focused less on the "using 'racism' incorrectly" and more on the "come on, what are the actual disadvantages to this fund".