Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7896003" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, yes. That's somewhat the point.If you go through all my posts, you'll find that the main thrust of my comments and the main thing I have a problem with is developing &quot;more specific colloquial meaning&quot; and applying it to terms which previously in common usage had very different meanings.&nbsp; In fact, in almost every one of these threads, the redefinition of terms is the main thing that I find offensive.&nbsp; I consider attacks on the integrity of language to be attacks on the ability of people to reason.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you take a term which was in common usage, and you redefine it so that it means something the opposite of what it once meant or at least something very different than what it once meant, then you are introducing confusion into the discussion that most people will have a very hard time dealing with because most people don't notice when the meaning of words shifts between two thoughts.&nbsp; It's very easy to speak nonsense&nbsp; that doesn't sound like nonsense, when you have a word with two opposing meanings.So, for my part, if someone had said, &quot;Zorblorfing is bad.&quot; And I said, &quot;What is zorblorfing?&quot;, and they had said, &quot;The exclusion of a demographic as part of the group by virtue of its perceived 'expertise' or 'right to belong' - in this specific case, being &quot;you don't belong in this group because you watch D&amp;D and [I assume] don't play it&quot;, then I would have happily agree, &quot;Oh yes, Zorblorfing is definitely bad. It has parallels for example in Jim Crow laws where voters from minority groups were suppressed using highly rigged and unfairly administered voter registration literacy tests.&quot; And we'd have agreement.But when you instead of inventing a new term to cover something that doesn't have a convenient label, reappropriate something with a specific meaning to cover a new meaning, you introduce a high degree of confusion.&nbsp;&nbsp; And my suspicion and in some cases accusation is that this confusion is intended and deliberate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7896003, member: 4937"] Well, yes. That's somewhat the point. If you go through all my posts, you'll find that the main thrust of my comments and the main thing I have a problem with is developing "more specific colloquial meaning" and applying it to terms which previously in common usage had very different meanings. In fact, in almost every one of these threads, the redefinition of terms is the main thing that I find offensive. I consider attacks on the integrity of language to be attacks on the ability of people to reason. If you take a term which was in common usage, and you redefine it so that it means something the opposite of what it once meant or at least something very different than what it once meant, then you are introducing confusion into the discussion that most people will have a very hard time dealing with because most people don't notice when the meaning of words shifts between two thoughts. It's very easy to speak nonsense that doesn't sound like nonsense, when you have a word with two opposing meanings. So, for my part, if someone had said, "Zorblorfing is bad." And I said, "What is zorblorfing?", and they had said, "The exclusion of a demographic as part of the group by virtue of its perceived 'expertise' or 'right to belong' - in this specific case, being "you don't belong in this group because you watch D&D and [I assume] don't play it", then I would have happily agree, "Oh yes, Zorblorfing is definitely bad. It has parallels for example in Jim Crow laws where voters from minority groups were suppressed using highly rigged and unfairly administered voter registration literacy tests." And we'd have agreement. But when you instead of inventing a new term to cover something that doesn't have a convenient label, reappropriate something with a specific meaning to cover a new meaning, you introduce a high degree of confusion. And my suspicion and in some cases accusation is that this confusion is intended and deliberate. [/QUOTE]

Verification