17 ms·

I get the reference, but it seems like either a non-sequitur or a joke I'm not getting.

• CyberRabbi 6y ago
  It’s not a non-sequitor nor a joke, the point is to highlight the danger of linguistic relativism. If we dismiss the idea that words must follow some standard meanings, things we value can be gradually shifted into weapons of oppression.
  • greenshackle2 6y ago
    And who decides what these standard meanings are?
    • CyberRabbi 6y ago
      It doesn’t matter who decides, it only matters that a decision has been made and that is it respected and enforced. Generally academics and/or intellectuals edit dictionaries
  • soldehierro 6y ago
    You're seriously overthinking this. Descriptivism isn't some plot to twist our cherished language, it just describes the language as it is currently used by speakers.
    • CyberRabbi 6y ago
      I believe there needs to be serious limits on the ability of “descriptivists” to condone divergent meanings of words. Within reason it is fine to describe new slightly expanded uses of words but wholesale accepting that word meanings can change arbitrarily in principle seems harmful to the maintenance of the integrity and quality of our language. For example, many people dislike HOAs but neighborhoods with HOAs maintain a certain level of quality, while neighborhoods without HOAs have quality levels across the board, including very bad.