3 ms·

> Uh... you know that "idiot" was originally a medical term which would have had a pretty clear definition right along the lines of "anybody below X IQ" Yes, I

by Bigpet 5y ago

> Uh... you know that "idiot" was originally a medical term which would have had a pretty clear definition right along the lines of "anybody below X IQ" Yes, I do know that. That's not what people mean when they use it as a pejorative. They might reference it, but they don't use that word to convey that fact. If someone calls you an idiot and you pull out an IQ test, they're just going to laugh at you. > I disagree. Words have meaning. I similarly think arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite. If you want, try to find a linguist to argue that with. > Facts are infinitely more important. If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults. You did, therefore I think it's rightful for people to read your message with tone and emotion and try to parse that too. If you didn't want to convey those things, you should not have used that word.

antisol 5y ago
You said that it's a waste of time to argue what IQ score qualifies as "Idiot". There is a clear and concrete answer to that question, because the word "idiot" has a medical definition. Yes, you were correct in your statement that it's a waste of time to argue, but not for the reason you state: There is a clear and correct answer. (at least) one person involved in such an argument will be empirically incorrect. >arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite Then I'd suggest that in future you should avoid starting arguments about it. >If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't accept it as an insult in this case. It is merely a fact, empirically correct. The audacity maintainers are scumbags (and to be clear, I mean all of them, not just the guy who blocked me, not just the muse employees: anybody who hasn't left the project, as they're all complicit in this behaviour). Unless someone can give me the differing ethical viewpoint that I have repeatedly solicited to the point of tedium, you can't sensibly argue otherwise.

by Bigpet 5y ago

antisol 5y ago

You said that it's a waste of time to argue what IQ score qualifies as "Idiot". There is a clear and concrete answer to that question, because the word "idiot" has a medical definition. Yes, you were correct in your statement that it's a waste of time to argue, but not for the reason you state: There is a clear and correct answer. (at least) one person involved in such an argument will be empirically incorrect. >arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite Then I'd suggest that in future you should avoid starting arguments about it. >If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't accept it as an insult in this case. It is merely a fact, empirically correct. The audacity maintainers are scumbags (and to be clear, I mean all of them, not just the guy who blocked me, not just the muse employees: anybody who hasn't left the project, as they're all complicit in this behaviour). Unless someone can give me the differing ethical viewpoint that I have repeatedly solicited to the point of tedium, you can't sensibly argue otherwise.