One exception, the argument is about spelling or grammar then it’s kinda invited mockery. Aside from that you’re just dealing with an ableist, dyslexia is the most common learning disability
Dyslexia is common, but people for whom english is not their first language, whose learning is still in progress. Those are even more common on the internet.
i do have a problem with intentionally mutilating words tho… like “parentification” and “enshitification”…
although the second is a little bit funny…
or when people intentionally redefine words… like racism as meaning “systemic and systematic racism as experienced by non-whites by whites in america” and as such it’s impossible to be “racist” against white people…
but it’s just stupid… racism and “systemic racism” are two different concepts…
something like webster will try to cover all uses of a term… so if people use it a certain way, it becomes valid…
so really you’re just saying, “it’s not uncommon for people to use it that way, so it’s valid”
which is basically true for the English language. HOWEVER that’s not what im talking about, i’m talking about people claiming that the other, more common definition of racism isn’t valid… and that the systemic racism definition is the only valid definition.
and they’re definitely wrong if they claim that.
btw, in the webster example, they still use qualifying terms… such as: institutional racism, structural racism, environmental racism… and then further clarifies it with: see also SYSTEMIC RACISM
so sure, someone can use the term racism as a shorthand for systemic racism… totally fine, the meaning is conveyed… etc…
but, no, they’re definitely wrong if they claim racism is only systemic racism…
I don’t really understand your point. Portmanteaus and coining new words are useful in conveying complex concepts, though. If you wanted to have a conversation about parentification would you rather have one word to encompass that or have to say “the effect of having to be a care giver to your caregivers during your formative years” every time you need to reference that concept in the discussion.
What makes that a mutilation instead of more efficient?
The racism thing is confusing because racism encompasses both forms but there are specific descriptors for unique expressions of the same thing. Just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square. That’s not really redefining, systemic racism has been racism the whole time, too. We’re just aware enough to have discussions about the specific ways it effects society today.
Edit: redefining “literally” to accommodate people using incorrectly on the other hand was a misstep for the English language, though. So I don’t necessarily disagree, I just think you picked bad examples.
just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square.
no, it’s not like that. the thing i’m arguing against is like saying a square isn’t a rectangle anymore…
it’s saying racism is not discrimination based on someone’s perceived race, and that it’s only systemic racism.
That’s not really redefining, systemic racism has been racism the whole time, too.
no, it absolutely has not… there’s a reason “systemic racism” has “systemic” in it…
it’s to make a distinction…
you can say systemic racism is a subset of racism in general… but really it isn’t, it’s racism applied to a system.
like, a car is not a subset of “blue”, but i can have a blue car…
and you missed the end point where people claim it’s impossible to be racist against white people… when in fact it very much is possible and not that rare… (definitely not the biggest problem in the world, but it is a thing)
and with “parentification”, because it’s just adding ification on the end to make it sound smarter, when “child parenting” or “children forced to do things they’re too young to do”
or… anything other than that dumb term, which definitely hurts any attempts to discuss it and be taken seriously…
“-ification” is a suffix about transformation and becoming so the word works fine. Your argument it is just anti-intellectualist opinion. So who cares?
I wouldn’t say I’m an intellectualist, but I am an anti-anti-intellectualist. Doesn’t it makes me sound so smart? Your analogy isn’t one and your points make no sense. You’re shoe horning a white plight angle into this convo for no reason. You’re downvoting me for challenging you to better represent your point of view.
what in the flying fuck are you talking about?
i even said “not the biggest problem” to make it very clear it’s not a problem… it’s just a matter of meanings of words.
you getting all worked up over a conversation about word’s meanings and wordsmithing shows me more than i want to know about you…
The fact that you’re bringing it up at all indicates that you haven’t been paying enough attention to the problems and conversations about racism.
Even your language “not the biggest problem” does not mean “not a problem” it literally means second place or lower. Which is a lot of wiggle room for validating white rights ideologues.
Even your language “not the biggest problem” does not mean “not a problem”
that’s exactly what i meant by that
it literally means second place or lower.
perhaps english isn’t your first language? it’s a very common way of saying something isn’t a problem… it’s not meant to be taken literally
Which is a lot of wiggle room for validating white rights ideologues.
fuck “white rights” ideologues… is that explicit enough for you?
… the fact that im bringing it up at all?
im speaking about the definition of the term… and how it’s incongruent with reality… that it is possible to be racist against any race… by definition…
not that it’s a problem or common or anywhere close to what other ethnicities have experienced in america…
but it’s definitely not completely impossible.
it’s not some dumb shit where “white men can’t get hired because of the woke left!” or whatever insane shit you’re reacting to…
that’s not me… and it’s fucked up to just jump to that.
i care a lot about racism and other forms of prejudice and injustice…
don’t take a conversation about the definition of terms and try to twist it into “white rights” bullshit…
white people have not experienced systemic racism and that’s what the “white rights ideologues” are claiming… they’re claiming some massive conspiracy to… yada yada yada…
but that doesn’t mean that an individual can’t specifically be prejudiced against… fuck i don’t even like the word “white people”
but… yeah some people are very prejudiced against caucasians… not very common in countries where they’re the majority…
no neoliberal mass plan to make them all gay trans and brown or whatever they’re dreaming about.
you need to learn how to talk about one thing without getting your emotions from another thing tangled up.
when someone starts insulting your grammar and typing, you know you’ve won the argument
Periods exist. /s
Yeah but some men find it uncomfortable to talk about them.
i hear nowadays, it’s considered rude to end a single sentence with a period.
Period.
…
I did not know that.
no – period
One exception, the argument is about spelling or grammar then it’s kinda invited mockery. Aside from that you’re just dealing with an ableist, dyslexia is the most common learning disability
Dyslexia is common, but people for whom english is not their first language, whose learning is still in progress. Those are even more common on the internet.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
continuing to prove my point
deleted by creator
So you want your whole ass engulfed by a giant asshole? I’d delete that too
i do have a problem with intentionally mutilating words tho… like “parentification” and “enshitification”…
although the second is a little bit funny…
or when people intentionally redefine words… like racism as meaning “systemic and systematic racism as experienced by non-whites by whites in america” and as such it’s impossible to be “racist” against white people…
but it’s just stupid… racism and “systemic racism” are two different concepts…
FYI both are valid definitions - if someone just says racism and seems to mean systemic racism, then they’re not wrong.
something like webster will try to cover all uses of a term… so if people use it a certain way, it becomes valid…
so really you’re just saying, “it’s not uncommon for people to use it that way, so it’s valid”
which is basically true for the English language.
HOWEVER that’s not what im talking about, i’m talking about people claiming that the other, more common definition of racism isn’t valid… and that the systemic racism definition is the only valid definition.
and they’re definitely wrong if they claim that.
btw, in the webster example, they still use qualifying terms… such as: institutional racism, structural racism, environmental racism… and then further clarifies it with: see also SYSTEMIC RACISM
so sure, someone can use the term racism as a shorthand for systemic racism… totally fine, the meaning is conveyed… etc…
but, no, they’re definitely wrong if they claim racism is only systemic racism…
I don’t really understand your point. Portmanteaus and coining new words are useful in conveying complex concepts, though. If you wanted to have a conversation about parentification would you rather have one word to encompass that or have to say “the effect of having to be a care giver to your caregivers during your formative years” every time you need to reference that concept in the discussion.
What makes that a mutilation instead of more efficient?
The racism thing is confusing because racism encompasses both forms but there are specific descriptors for unique expressions of the same thing. Just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square. That’s not really redefining, systemic racism has been racism the whole time, too. We’re just aware enough to have discussions about the specific ways it effects society today.
Edit: redefining “literally” to accommodate people using incorrectly on the other hand was a misstep for the English language, though. So I don’t necessarily disagree, I just think you picked bad examples.
no, it’s not like that. the thing i’m arguing against is like saying a square isn’t a rectangle anymore…
it’s saying racism is not discrimination based on someone’s perceived race, and that it’s only systemic racism.
no, it absolutely has not… there’s a reason “systemic racism” has “systemic” in it…
it’s to make a distinction…
you can say systemic racism is a subset of racism in general… but really it isn’t, it’s racism applied to a system.
like, a car is not a subset of “blue”, but i can have a blue car…
and you missed the end point where people claim it’s impossible to be racist against white people… when in fact it very much is possible and not that rare… (definitely not the biggest problem in the world, but it is a thing)
and with “parentification”, because it’s just adding ification on the end to make it sound smarter, when “child parenting” or “children forced to do things they’re too young to do”
or… anything other than that dumb term, which definitely hurts any attempts to discuss it and be taken seriously…
“-ification” is a suffix about transformation and becoming so the word works fine. Your argument it is just anti-intellectualist opinion. So who cares?
I wouldn’t say I’m an intellectualist, but I am an anti-anti-intellectualist. Doesn’t it makes me sound so smart? Your analogy isn’t one and your points make no sense. You’re shoe horning a white plight angle into this convo for no reason. You’re downvoting me for challenging you to better represent your point of view.
So, good faith’s dried up, get bent asshole.
what in the flying fuck are you talking about?
i even said “not the biggest problem” to make it very clear it’s not a problem… it’s just a matter of meanings of words.
you getting all worked up over a conversation about word’s meanings and wordsmithing shows me more than i want to know about you…
The fact that you’re bringing it up at all indicates that you haven’t been paying enough attention to the problems and conversations about racism.
Even your language “not the biggest problem” does not mean “not a problem” it literally means second place or lower. Which is a lot of wiggle room for validating white rights ideologues.
that’s exactly what i meant by that
perhaps english isn’t your first language? it’s a very common way of saying something isn’t a problem… it’s not meant to be taken literally
fuck “white rights” ideologues… is that explicit enough for you?
… the fact that im bringing it up at all?
im speaking about the definition of the term… and how it’s incongruent with reality… that it is possible to be racist against any race… by definition…
not that it’s a problem or common or anywhere close to what other ethnicities have experienced in america…
but it’s definitely not completely impossible.
it’s not some dumb shit where “white men can’t get hired because of the woke left!” or whatever insane shit you’re reacting to…
that’s not me… and it’s fucked up to just jump to that.
i care a lot about racism and other forms of prejudice and injustice…
don’t take a conversation about the definition of terms and try to twist it into “white rights” bullshit…
white people have not experienced systemic racism and that’s what the “white rights ideologues” are claiming… they’re claiming some massive conspiracy to… yada yada yada…
but that doesn’t mean that an individual can’t specifically be prejudiced against… fuck i don’t even like the word “white people”
but… yeah some people are very prejudiced against caucasians… not very common in countries where they’re the majority…
no neoliberal mass plan to make them all gay trans and brown or whatever they’re dreaming about.
you need to learn how to talk about one thing without getting your emotions from another thing tangled up.