3 ms·
> What's the point of arguing about the correctness of a phrase when it does a perfect job of conveying meaning? See this is what I mean when I say that your p
by samirillian 3y ago
> What's the point of arguing about the correctness of a phrase when it does a perfect job of conveying meaning?
See this is what I mean when I say that your position is closer to the Newspeak ethos. What's wrong with ungood, after all? It does a perfect job of conveying meaning.
- soraminazuki 3y agoSee this is what I mean when I say your arguments resemble doublethink. The Newspeak language eradicates words on the basis that they're redundant. The Wikipedia editor went to eradicate a phrase using the same justification. There's an obvious parallel here. > It does a perfect job of conveying meaning. This is a fact that holds true regardless of one's opinion. Yet, you're fallaciously framing this as an opinion to make it look like Oceania and I hold the same opinion. When it comes to my actual opinion, I favor languages spoken as is. Newspeak, on the others hand, is an artificially restricted one. The false equivalence you made between these two conflicting positions can only be explained as doublethink.