4 ms·

>Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. I am not sure, hence my reference to the dictionary. In my opinion the whole

>Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. I am not sure, hence my reference to the dictionary. In my opinion the whole discussion is because people only know one usage and think the other one is a hyperbole. Otherwise you'd been actually arguing about the meanings of words with the dictionary, which looks rather stupid.

ninkendo 6y ago
Your position seems to be that it’s invalid to even talk about whether a word should be used in a context, if the dictionary says it should. This prevents any discourse around whether we should evolve the language, because an appeal to authority like citing the dictionary would just shut down the debate. To use an offensive example: This dictionary has a 4th definition for the word “Jew” meaning “to bargain sharply with”: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew If somebody said “Maybe we shouldn’t use “Jew” as a verb to mean this, since it has negative connotations”, would you also cite this dictionary link to say that it’s perfectly fine? (I would charitably assume no.) The discussion is, to me, very clear. We all know that “Poach” can mean hiring someone from a competitor. But some of us feel that using it in that regard creates the wrong connotation, and although it’s commonly used, and even in the dictionary, maybe we ought to not use it that way. Do you see why citing the dictionary is counterproductive here?
- pandaman 6y ago
  I am sure you are trolling now. You pick an example from some unknown dictionary, explicitly marked as offensive right there and pretend there is an argument if it's offensive or not. Is not this exactly what you had been accusing me of doing? Anyways, my position is pretty clear - if you disagree and want your own language, I am fine with it, have a day.

ninkendo 6y ago

Your position seems to be that it’s invalid to even talk about whether a word should be used in a context, if the dictionary says it should. This prevents any discourse around whether we should evolve the language, because an appeal to authority like citing the dictionary would just shut down the debate. To use an offensive example: This dictionary has a 4th definition for the word “Jew” meaning “to bargain sharply with”: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew If somebody said “Maybe we shouldn’t use “Jew” as a verb to mean this, since it has negative connotations”, would you also cite this dictionary link to say that it’s perfectly fine? (I would charitably assume no.) The discussion is, to me, very clear. We all know that “Poach” can mean hiring someone from a competitor. But some of us feel that using it in that regard creates the wrong connotation, and although it’s commonly used, and even in the dictionary, maybe we ought to not use it that way. Do you see why citing the dictionary is counterproductive here?

pandaman 6y ago
I am sure you are trolling now. You pick an example from some unknown dictionary, explicitly marked as offensive right there and pretend there is an argument if it's offensive or not. Is not this exactly what you had been accusing me of doing? Anyways, my position is pretty clear - if you disagree and want your own language, I am fine with it, have a day.