3 ms·

Well it certainly represents a failure to communicate coherent semantics to people who don't recognize acceptable forms of abuse.

vidarh 3y ago
"Overabuse" in this case represents a recognition of levels of "abuse", not a moral judgement of whether abuse is ever acceptable. Further, the term "abuse" is used both about transgressions against a person, where I agree that this concept would be offensive as well as to indicate going beyond a perceived normative use of something in a way that does not imply harm to anyone and that may or may not be acceptable to a given person in a given context. E.g. "I abused this API to do X" implies I recognize that what I'm doing isn't the clean or intended use of it, but doesn't in itself imply that it's not acceptable (it could be unacceptable use, but it could also just not be the "proper" way of doing something). "Overabuse" is a rarely used word, so I probably wouldn't use it myself, but anyone who quibbles over it because they "don't recognize acceptable forms of abuse" will already struggle with well-established long-standing use of "abuse" in English that is covered by primary dictionary definitions.
- DinaCoder99 3y ago
  The "over" prefix does actually imply a level of acceptable abuse, regardless of whether or not you consider this a moral judgement. Otherwise what would the prefix imply? It's inherently a comparison to some implicit degree of abuse.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    Just because there are degrees of murder doesn't mean any level of murder is acceptable.
    - DinaCoder99 3y ago
      Ok but "overmurder" isn't a thing, so how is murder relevant?
      - vidarh 3y ago
        "overkill", however, is a thing, implying more force used than needed without any moral implications.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Go through and look at actual uses of the term "in the wild" and you will see there is no such implication. > Otherwise what would the prefix imply? It's inherently a comparison to some implicit degree of abuse. You just answered your own question, and contradicted your initial assumption.

vidarh 3y ago

"Overabuse" in this case represents a recognition of levels of "abuse", not a moral judgement of whether abuse is ever acceptable. Further, the term "abuse" is used both about transgressions against a person, where I agree that this concept would be offensive as well as to indicate going beyond a perceived normative use of something in a way that does not imply harm to anyone and that may or may not be acceptable to a given person in a given context. E.g. "I abused this API to do X" implies I recognize that what I'm doing isn't the clean or intended use of it, but doesn't in itself imply that it's not acceptable (it could be unacceptable use, but it could also just not be the "proper" way of doing something). "Overabuse" is a rarely used word, so I probably wouldn't use it myself, but anyone who quibbles over it because they "don't recognize acceptable forms of abuse" will already struggle with well-established long-standing use of "abuse" in English that is covered by primary dictionary definitions.

DinaCoder99 3y ago
The "over" prefix does actually imply a level of acceptable abuse, regardless of whether or not you consider this a moral judgement. Otherwise what would the prefix imply? It's inherently a comparison to some implicit degree of abuse.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  Just because there are degrees of murder doesn't mean any level of murder is acceptable.
  - DinaCoder99 3y ago
    Ok but "overmurder" isn't a thing, so how is murder relevant?
    - vidarh 3y ago
      "overkill", however, is a thing, implying more force used than needed without any moral implications.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Go through and look at actual uses of the term "in the wild" and you will see there is no such implication. > Otherwise what would the prefix imply? It's inherently a comparison to some implicit degree of abuse. You just answered your own question, and contradicted your initial assumption.