[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864951]if a person is a jerk, then they're a jerk. there's no need to apply weird internet lingo to it and do a bunch of roundabout stuff to justify it[/QUOTE]
Using that reasoning you could say that it's useless to call people racist and bigots, a lot of them are jerks too.
because it's literally internet slang rofl
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864967]Using that reasoning you could say that it's useless to call people[B] racist [/B]and [B]bigots[/B], a lot of them are jerks too.[/QUOTE]
these are actually rooted in the english language, sjw isn't
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46864963]We have already established that social justice warrior is extremely vague and easily modifiable so not really.[/QUOTE]
I don't recall anything close to that.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46864924]An important part of language is that it remains consistent and if you have to post a disclaimer that your definition "doesn't speak for anyone else" and only "some people" might agree, with degrees of of how broad or narrow the exact definition is, then it's a useless piece of lexicon. Nobody has to include that before being answering the definition of the word sky, or train, or even other pejoratives. Especially not misogyny, in which the definition has actually changed extremely little relative to the hundreds (thousands?) of years it's been a part of Western European language.[/QUOTE]
That's totally not true, at least as far as misogyny goes.
Aristotle was not a misogynist two thousand years ago when he said "Women are not smart enough to lead a full life." He would be today.
The Catholic Church was not misogynistic when they said that women were not capable of entering into the services of a priest. They would be today (and are.)
The Founder of the Mormon Church was not misogynistic for believing he needed to have many wives. He is considered to be (strongly) today.
Don Draper in mad men was not considered misogynistic in the 50's for finger banging a senior business partner's wife at a cocktail party to "show his dominance" or whatever pretext it was. He definitely would be today.
The connotations and ideas of misogyny have changed, ridiculously and fluidly.
So when I give an account of what I take SJW to be, I can infact only give my own account and hope it's corroborated by others. If it's not, then I misunderstood the word and it's meaning, that does not mean that the word is "useless." It's what I understand it to mean [I]to other people as well.[/I]
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864957]The meaning of "misogyny" stray rather far from its original meaning if you ask the most radical AGGers, though.[/QUOTE]
Ok though here is the problem though you need to stop worrying about gamergate and anti-gamergate for like one second ok?
[B]
I'm not asking "radical AGGers" what misogyny means because their opinion doesn't matter because misogyny has a clear textbook dicitionary definition. [/B]
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864957]Besides, the rules you set here don't apply to most of linguistics. A lot of words have changed meaning overtime and it's due to people interpreting them in slightly different ways over the span of generations. Why can't the same hold true for SJW?[/QUOTE]
Changing meaning over time is one thing.
"This is my definition of the word and some people might agree or disagree and it can mean a lot of different things" is entirely different.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864969]because it's literally internet slang rofl
these are actually rooted in the english language, sjw isn't[/QUOTE]
I already posted a response to this in the previous page. Would you like to consider it?
[editline]6th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46864984]Ok though here is the problem though you need to stop worrying about gamergate and anti-gamergate for like one second ok?
[B]
I'm not asking "radical AGGers" what misogyny means because their opinion doesn't matter because misogyny has a clear textbook dicitionary definition. [/B]
Changing meaning over time is one thing.
"This is my definition of the word and some people might agree or disagree and it can mean a lot of different things" is entirely different.[/QUOTE]
So according to you new words aren't allowed to be created? That's a rather stiff interpretation of language.
And words change over time [B]because[/B] different people interpret them in various manners. Haven't you read my previous post?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46864984]
[B]
I'm not asking "radical AGGers" what misogyny means because their opinion doesn't matter because misogyny has a clear textbook dicitionary definition. [/B]
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit.
If you want to use "clear textbook definitions" then by the standards of textbooks and dictionaries marriage is only a union between a man and a woman.
I sincerely doubt you adhere to that belief.
Authority does not lend credibility or meaning. If it did, then you better kneel before the Temple of Oxford and pray to the editor of the encyclopedia, lest he change the reality of your world with a keystroke.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46864984]Ok though here is the problem though you need to stop worrying about gamergate and anti-gamergate for like one second ok?
[B]
I'm not asking "radical AGGers" what misogyny means because their opinion doesn't matter because misogyny has a clear textbook dicitionary definition. [/B]
Changing meaning over time is one thing.
"This is my definition of the word and some people might agree or disagree and it can mean a lot of different things" is entirely different.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why exactly you have a beef against the SJW term, by the way. You seem to understand what it's supposed to refer to, why can't we have a denomination for them? Is it the fact that Social Justice is part of it that bugs you?
you can't consider 'racist' and 'sjw' to be in the same camp because 'sjw' is lexicon that was born out of excessive white fluff that really has no place to be used in academic debate
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864967]Using that reasoning you could say that it's useless to call people racist and bigots, a lot of them are jerks too.[/QUOTE]
While I generally agree with the idea that simply calling someone a racist or a bigot without explaining how their positions are racist or bigoted is useless, racist or bigot are still easily defineable and consistent regardless of how many people use the phrase wrong.
With SJW there is no right or wrong use because it's definition changes from person to person, hour to hour.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46864983]
The connotations and ideas of misogyny have changed, ridiculously and fluidly.
So when I give an account of what I take SJW to be, I can infact only give my own account and hope it's corroborated by others. If it's not, then I misunderstood the word and it's meaning, that does not mean that the word is "useless." It's what I understand it to mean [I]to other people as well.[/I][/QUOTE]
If you can't see the difference between a word changing meanings across centuries of evolution of language and you having to step on eggshells to define a word between threads than I don't really know how much farther this discussion can go. Language isn't "corroborated" by others. We don't have conference calls to discuss what the definition of ocean should be today as opposed to two weeks ago.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865016]you can't consider 'racist' and 'sjw' to be in the same camp because 'sjw' is lexicon that was born out of excessive white fluff that really has no place to be used in academic debate[/QUOTE]
We're about as far from academic debate here as it gets, so why does that matter?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865023]While I generally agree with the idea that simply calling someone a racist or a bigot without explaining how their positions are racist or bigoted is useless, racist or bigot are still easily defineable and consistent regardless of how many people use the phrase wrong.
With SJW there is no right or wrong use because it's definition changes from person to person, hour to hour. [/QUOTE]
Now, now, you're using hyperbole. A lot of people in the CIGJDAUT seemed to agree with my definition, and I think that holds true for a lot of other people given their use of it.
Besides, words aren't born in dictionaries. The organic nature of language is often responsible for a sizable discrepancy in meaning with recently coined terms. Why is it such a big deal?
because it's used as a lazy copout instead of actually following a debate
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864986]
So according to you new words aren't allowed to be created? That's a rather stiff interpretation of language.
And words change over time [B]because[/B] different people interpret them in various manners. Haven't you read my previous post?[/QUOTE]
Genuinely no clue how you got "new words aren't allowed to be created" out of my post.
And yes, words can change over time. I said that in one of the posts I made. The difference is that misogyny has changed over time, SJW changes in the present from person to person.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46865003]Bullshit.
If you want to use "clear textbook definitions" then by the standards of textbooks and dictionaries marriage is only a union between a man and a woman.
I sincerely doubt you adhere to that belief.
Authority does not lend credibility or meaning. If it did, then you better kneel before the Temple of Oxford and pray to the editor of the encyclopedia, lest he change the reality of your world with a keystroke.[/QUOTE]
I can't find a single dictionary that doesn't include an entry for same-sex marriage as a modifier to marriage, which indeed is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's not a "belief" I adhere to, it's called knowing what words mean.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46865015]I don't understand why exactly you have a beef against the SJW term, by the way. You seem to understand what it's supposed to refer to, why can't we have a denomination for them? Is it the fact that Social Justice is part of it that bugs you?[/QUOTE]
Because it's a vague, useless derogatory pejorative that sidesteps actual debate and discussion.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865067]because it's used as a lazy copout instead of actually following a debate[/QUOTE]
That's far from an accurate rule. Do I really need to retype all the stuff I said in the previous pages?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865023]
If you can't see the difference between a word changing meanings across centuries of evolution of language and you having to step on eggshells to define a word between threads than I don't really know how much farther this discussion can go. Language isn't "corroborated" by others. We don't have conference calls to discuss what the definition of ocean should be today as opposed to two weeks ago.[/QUOTE]
Um.
What?
Out of one side of your mouth you'll say language mutates, and evolves, then out of the other deny that language works by consensus?
Let's consider what "Negro" means.
Negro is not a "friendly" word anymore, but it is the Spanish word for black.
It was further bastardized through accent into the term "Nigger."
It even evolved to be the medical term for a person with darkly pigmented skin.
If I walked around calling black people "Negroes" you wouldn't think it was equitable with me calling white people "Causcasians." You'd label me a racist. But here look, I can appeal to my textbook. I can appeal to fine doctors and essays from the 1950's. Look at all this authority and all of this rich history which means I can call black people Negroes with near total innocence.
It'd be another thing if I called them [I]niggers[/I] of course because that's a different word right? It evolved and has it's own special meaning, granted to it by majestic authority, separate from Negro.
No.
Language is most certainly corroborative. If I began yelling "NEGROS EVERYWHERE" you would dismiss me as racist because it has unofficial connotations. We have a certain understanding of the word.
All that's happening here, with these "eggshells" is your petty focus on my wording, and refusal to accept my definition because I prefaced it as my own, because [I]holy shit[/I] Oxford hasn't defined a Social Justice Warrior. Nor has it defined a gangbanger or a Conservative Politician yet you recognize those terms for more than just their petty meanings.
I'm going to elect to suspend my half of this conversation going forward. Either you're obstinately trying to prove a point (if so, good for you) or you're sincerely convinced, much like a Young Earth Creationist, that your holy book dictates the reality of the universe and that our understandings of some things may be more nuanced than your dogma.
Addendum:
[quote]
I can't find a single dictionary that doesn't include an entry for same-sex marriage as a modifier to marriage, which indeed is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It's not a "belief" I adhere to, it's called knowing what words mean.
[/quote]
Dear lord.
Now you're appealing to petty modifiers?
Fine, Social is a modifier of Justice which is what the noun Warrior fights for.
Warrior has a connotation of brutality, base behavior, primal combatant.
Social Justice Warriors are people who fight for the former thing (Social Justice) in a primitive, brusque way (As if Warriors.)
Awesome. You will now kneel to the East, facing Oxford-On-Don and thank the typesetters for bringing you knowledge.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46865082]That's far from an accurate rule. Do I really need to retype all the stuff I said in the previous pages?[/QUOTE]
v
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865075][B]Because it's a vague, useless derogatory pejorative that sidesteps actual debate and discussion.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's logically no different from the baseless accusations of being a racist, or a sexist, or an MRA that you don't like either.
If someone is being an asshole and using progressive social policy as a cover or a smokescreen then you should be able to easily deconstruct their position and expose them for what they really are rather than rely on weak ad hominem and a neologism that hits as much as it misses.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865075]The difference is that misogyny has changed over time, SJW changes in the present from person to person.[/QUOTE]
You're literally not reading my posts. Other words change meaning from persons to persons, even if it's in a slight manner. [B]That's how they are able to change meaning overtime.[/B]
[QUOTE]Because it's a vague, useless derogatory pejorative that sidesteps actual debate and discussion.[/QUOTE]
Nothing other than your own claims seem to indicate that. A lot of people use SJW to refer to my definition.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46865090]
All that's happening here, with these "eggshells" is your petty focus on my wording, and refusal to accept my definition because I prefaced it as my own, because [I]holy shit[/I] Oxford hasn't defined a Social Justice Warrior. Nor has it defined a gangbanger or a Conservative Politician yet you recognize those terms for more than just their petty meanings.[/QUOTE]
First off, the dictionary does have definitions for "conservative" and "politician".
Secondly, you're missing my point entirely. I'm not saying SJW is useless because it's not in the dictionary, that's an absurd strawman you pulled straight from your ass. I'm saying SJW is useless because you can't even objectively define it.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46865090]I'm going to elect to suspend my half of this conversation going forward. Either you're obstinately trying to prove a point (if so, good for you) or you're sincerely convinced, much like a Young Earth Creationist, that your holy book dictates the reality of the universe and that our understandings of some things may be more nuanced than your dogma.[/QUOTE]
The only one trying to obstinately prove a point is the people who insist on using SJW because their vocabulary supports little else and actually deconstructing someones argument is too difficult. I never expect any of these discussions to actually get anywhere anyway because a lot of it is semantics.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865098]It's logically no different from the baseless accusations of being a racist, or a sexist, or an MRA that you don't like either.[/QUOTE]
No. Racists, sexists or MRAs are actual types of people. Referring to them as such isn't a "baseless accusation" when it is corroborated by actual facts. It's not Ad-Hominem either when it's barely referring to them as a certain aspect of their personality. There is no difference with SJW. It can be a baseless accusation if it's aimed at someone who simply holds progressive belief but it's not when it's referring to the specific extremists it's supposed to describe.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46865103]You're literally not reading my posts. Other words change meaning from persons to persons, even if it's in a slight manner. [B]That's how they are able to change meaning overtime.[/B][/QUOTE]
The meaning of misogyny doesn't change from person to person. It doesn't. It might change in 200 years, or 100 years, or 50 years, but right now there is a consistent definition for what misogyny is. The same can't be said of SJW.
They aren't the same thing just because you interpret both as insults.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46865103]Nothing other than your own claims seem to indicate that. A lot of people use SJW to refer to my definition.[/QUOTE]
Good for you.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;46865135]No. Racists, sexists or MRAs are actual types of people. Referring to them as such isn't a "baseless accusation" when it is corroborated by actual facts. It's not Ad-Hominem either when it's barely referring to them as a certain aspect of their personality. There is no difference with SJW. It can be a baseless accusation if it's aimed at someone who simply holds progressive belief but it's not when it's referring to the specific extremists it's supposed to describe.[/QUOTE]
That's what I mean though, when it isn't corroborated by actual facts. What facts make someone an SJW?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865133]The only one trying to obstinately prove a point is the people who insist on using SJW because their vocabulary supports little else and actually deconstructing someones argument is too difficult. I never expect any of these discussions to actually get anywhere anyway because a lot of it is semantics.[/QUOTE]
Stop for a second and actually think about what you're writing. You're using baseless generalizations when saying that the only people who use SJW are the ones who do so because they lack proper arguments. It's a denomination, people usually don't make sentences out of simple nouns and actually have something worth saying besides. It's not solely used by dumbasses as a cheap Ad-Hominem.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46864963]We have already established that social justice warrior is extremely vague and easily modifiable so not really.
It would be far more effective to tear down their weak fortifications of "But I'm a Progressive" with logic rather than baseless, nebulous, barely definable pejoratives like SJW.[/QUOTE]
And see how that has worked out for #GamerGate. Look at a random exchange between someone who is anti-gamergate and pro-gamergate on Twitter. The narrative that the media and the "progressives" have built is what matters. Logic doesn't matter to these people or the media.
gamergate is literally a clown car clusterfuck. why bring that into this thread
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865176]gamergate is literally a clown car clusterfuck. why bring that into this thread[/QUOTE]
Because it is objective proof that it doesn't matter if you deconstruct someone's facade of social justice. As long as you can say "racism" "sexism" "misogyny" and "homo/transphobia" the opposing side is [b]fucked[/b].
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865176]gamergate is literally a clown car clusterfuck. why bring that into this thread[/QUOTE]
please don't talk about things you don't know anything about, and refuse to do research on
oh wait it's ownederd that's your MO
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;46865191]please don't talk about things you don't know anything about, and refuse to do research on
oh wait it's ownederd that's your MO[/QUOTE]
i literally don't care gamergate sorry. i'm not gonna write an ironman17-level post on it
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply - Multiple threadshitting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
