4 ms·

I believe your view is not keeping up with the times. I think as long as you acknowledge there are people who use language to disambiguate sex and gender, but

I believe your view is not keeping up with the times. I think as long as you acknowledge there are people who use language to disambiguate sex and gender, but you choose not to use that language, then you are just expressing your opinion. I think it's fair for folks to probe why you choose the language you do, and even to suggest that the reasons you supply might be considered ignorant. We only improve if we all try to understand the reasoning behind each other more.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I didn't suggest that new was correct, I suggested new exists and we should acknowledge it. I don't use "yeet" as a word, and I find it silly. But nonetheless I'm aware some people do use it, and so it's in my lexicon as a word that I just don't care for. My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    This completely misses the point. No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage. They are saying the usage is imprecise. It commandeers an existing word. Using that word in the conventional way is portrayed as archaic or bigoted. This is not remotely the same as making up a new word like yeet.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      I disagree, plenty of people have stated quite the opposite - that there exists one definition only and the other definitions are incorrect. I believe language is descriptive, and therefore definitions follow usage. If there exists new usage in common enough use, then the definition follows that use. And I don't believe the traditional use of a word makes one a bigot by default. I think that there are both bigots and non bigots that use the words traditionally. But this thread is absolutely stock full of people refusing to acknowledge that there might be multiple correct definitions.
      - crackercrews 4y ago
        You disagree that a neologism is different from changing the definition of an existing word? Please elaborate on how those two things are not distinguishable.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        No, I disagree that people understand there are two definitions in common use. The parent said that no one disagrees that people use the word in that way. I'd argue that several people in this thread have done so implicitly or explicitly by saying something to the effect of, "man means X and only X".
        crackercrews 4y ago
        Actually, the comment does not talk about that. It just says: > There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect. This asserts that newness does not equate with correctness. This implicitly recognizes that there are multiple uses.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        I'm responding specifically to: "No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage." Other places in this post people absolutely do deny the usage.
        crackercrews 4y ago
        I was using the word "deny" in the same way that you did here. You indicate it is not the same thing as "disagree with" > My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work. Where is someone denying that people use these terms in these new ways? I haven't read all the comments but haven't seen it so far.
chongli 4y ago
use language to disambiguate That's the ultimate issue here. Different groups of people want to disambiguate some terms and conflate others, and there is not enough overlap between these groups to reach a common ground. At its core is a struggle for power with the meanings of words representing territory to be won or lost. Orwell wrote extensively on this topic and left us with some pretty stern warnings which we as a society continue to ignore. And while everyone fights over this stuff we are ruining the planet and risking catastrophic consequences both environmental and political.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago

There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect.

socialismisok 4y ago
I didn't suggest that new was correct, I suggested new exists and we should acknowledge it. I don't use "yeet" as a word, and I find it silly. But nonetheless I'm aware some people do use it, and so it's in my lexicon as a word that I just don't care for. My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.
- crackercrews 4y ago
  This completely misses the point. No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage. They are saying the usage is imprecise. It commandeers an existing word. Using that word in the conventional way is portrayed as archaic or bigoted. This is not remotely the same as making up a new word like yeet.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    I disagree, plenty of people have stated quite the opposite - that there exists one definition only and the other definitions are incorrect. I believe language is descriptive, and therefore definitions follow usage. If there exists new usage in common enough use, then the definition follows that use. And I don't believe the traditional use of a word makes one a bigot by default. I think that there are both bigots and non bigots that use the words traditionally. But this thread is absolutely stock full of people refusing to acknowledge that there might be multiple correct definitions.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      You disagree that a neologism is different from changing the definition of an existing word? Please elaborate on how those two things are not distinguishable.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        No, I disagree that people understand there are two definitions in common use. The parent said that no one disagrees that people use the word in that way. I'd argue that several people in this thread have done so implicitly or explicitly by saying something to the effect of, "man means X and only X".
        crackercrews 4y ago
        Actually, the comment does not talk about that. It just says: > There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect. This asserts that newness does not equate with correctness. This implicitly recognizes that there are multiple uses.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        I'm responding specifically to: "No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage." Other places in this post people absolutely do deny the usage.
        crackercrews 4y ago
        I was using the word "deny" in the same way that you did here. You indicate it is not the same thing as "disagree with" > My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work. Where is someone denying that people use these terms in these new ways? I haven't read all the comments but haven't seen it so far.

chongli 4y ago

use language to disambiguate That's the ultimate issue here. Different groups of people want to disambiguate some terms and conflate others, and there is not enough overlap between these groups to reach a common ground. At its core is a struggle for power with the meanings of words representing territory to be won or lost. Orwell wrote extensively on this topic and left us with some pretty stern warnings which we as a society continue to ignore. And while everyone fights over this stuff we are ruining the planet and risking catastrophic consequences both environmental and political.