3 ms·
I can relate to what the OP is saying. The mainstream meaning is changing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. And I'm entitled to find it ridiculous. It's
by ThJ 14y ago
I can relate to what the OP is saying. The mainstream meaning is changing, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. And I'm entitled to find it ridiculous. It's also annoying to lose a shade of meaning in the language. I find myself having to use terms like "hardcore geek" and then having to define that. It's offensive to geek culture to have all these wannabe lightweights claiming an identity that used to be meaningful and even honorable (among the geeks themselves). How many of these so-called geeks have read the Jargon File?
- ezl 14y agoI agree that you, the OP, or anyone is entitled to not like the fact that the mainstream meaning is changing (or find it ridiculous). As I understand it, the conflict is that essentially this: Person A has adopted a word to mean a certain static thing. Person B interprets that word differently (or persons B-Z). Person A is entitled to feel it is ridiculous, sure. Person B is equally entitled to feel ownership of that word, unless you think that Person A's prior self-identification with that word or longer history of usage is sufficient to warrant some sort of authority over its common usage. Would you understand why someone who self identifies as a geek might be offended if you were adamant that they didn't "embody geek culture"? Words mean different things to different people. People got worked up over pg's supposedly narrow interpretation of the word "startup" in "Startup=Growth". Do what you do.