[sjmm1989]

There is language changing with the times, and then there is people changing language just because they figure they should/can.

I have no issue with the prior. My issue is with the latter.

And anyone who speaks the language or uses it on a daily basis has all the right in the world to judge the misuse of it. If you have a problem with this, then please stop talking all together, because your opinions are worthless. It is not the random idiot who gets to decide how the rest of the world shall use a language when the rules are already set beforehand by previous people who created those rules via the long process of natural change; not the short process of morons making things up to please themselves.

Have a nice day.

P.S. Before asking stupid questions about words like fuckwit, maybe do yourself a favor and look them up. I wasn't sure what colloquial meant, so I did exactly that before typing my comment. You should have done the same. You would have found out it's a legitimate word, to some extent at least more than the 'rule' of using "" improperly.

Fuckwit: a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse).

You can thank Oxford for this, via google.

[majormajor]

Oxford also has a definition of "scare quotes", e.g. "quotation marks that a writer puts around a word or phrase to show that it is used in an unusual way, usually one that the writer does not agree with" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...) or "Quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/scare_quotes). M-W does too. Cambridge Dictionary too. Quotation marks. Not just "air quotes" or "italics" or "/s" (in what universe does one think "/s" is more proper English than "scare quotes"?).

So. What's the problem, again? This is well enough established for Oxford, and seems to have only been a huge surprise to you.

(Edit: per MLA, the term was coined in 1956, but the use of punctuation in such a manner can be traced back to the second century BC. https://style.mla.org/scare-quotes-origins/ Fun fact!)

[mkaic]

If people say it, and other people understand what is said, then it's acceptable, correct English. End of story. "English as she is spoke", as Mark Twain put it. The dictionary is defined by how people speak, not the other way around. There is no arbiter of the English language, nor should there be. Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Urban -- they're all just snapshots of a language that has no real rules besides "if it sounds right, it's valid".

Scare quotes are absolutely valid English, because people use them. They are used to signal sarcasm or disbelief.

I'm going to assume that you are having a bad day or your comments were simply flamebait, in either case -- I hope you feel less angry soon and enjoy the rest of your day.

[_ehqz]

Preface: I'm done with this community and am just replying to you one last time cause you at least seem half reasonable at worst, and fully reasonable at best.

Enjoy your long read I guess. Note, you should try to mentally project someone just explaining their views onto these words. They are not written with any intent of vehemence towards you. Since people on the internet tend to project false intent onto words due to lack of a person to see/hear/etc... I am saying this in advance for you.

Without further adieu.

----

Right, well I used to agree with this notion, once upon a time ago.

But then people started to just decide that words mean new things because they want to be correct without having to try at all.

And I won't allow that. No one should. That's why I care, because these "scare quotes" as you all call them, are a relatively new thing that only just arose in my viewing of it. Before this, the last time I heard of this at all, it was some pissed off university students foaming at the mouth about stuff that didn't make any sense. Not going to be direct about what, because that's not the point of the convo right now. The point is that they were being silly, and changing definitions just to suit them. Something I have seen younger folk trying to do more and more over time; and I blame the education system for never properly teaching them how the language works in the first place.

And I'm not alone. My English may not be perfect of course, but my English teacher for the final years of my time in high school was the type who gave ZERO fucks about your opinion about how the language operated; cause she was a professor in university prior to returning to teaching high school English. Why did she do this?

Because she was finding that the students getting into University weren't being taught properly at all. And when she met some that came from her old town, and they were some of the worst... She retired and went back to teaching English in high school.

So again, I'm not alone in this. That's why I can take the die on this hill king of stance I am taking. Because yes, some of you like yourself mkaic are actually kind of right.

But because people who are wrong about so much else will use that to defend their erroneous ways, I cannot allow it on any good moral level when it comes to ensuring that information can always be understood by each other when communication is key.

It's like the okay sign. It was never an right wing symbol when I was growing up, but now because some university students say it is, now it is?

Fuck that. I used to use the okay sign to indicate I was fine with something without having to open my mouth. Or a thumbs up in other cases worked fine as well.

Personally, I'm waiting for them to try to claim that thumbs up are a sign of male sexism next. Why? Cause a thumb in erect position resembles a penis in erect position. With a big ball sack.

If you think I am kidding. I'm not. I fully expect one of those fuckwits to try this some day. And they will use the exact same kinds of arguments to declare that the sign has changed in definitions, and thus they are valid and the rest who are not what they claim; are not. Just like you are claiming in how English works, because according to your logic as I see it right now, mass opinion = correct; and that's just wrong.

Yes, you are right that over time this is how it works. But it's not something that people just decide one day and then suddenly it is so.

Also, because words are ultimately symbols in letter form, even hand signs get the same treatment in a way, hence my use of it as an example. In case you were wondering how we got to hand signs and stuff in all of this.

Long story short, I'm part of the other side of the fence that says "No, you may not misuse my language just to suit yourself." There is room for creativity in making new words instead. Or even new punctuation if need be. Our keyboards could use some key swaps for instance on that side of things. There are about 12 keys that are almost never used by most people anymore. 6-8 of them could easily be repurposed without inconveniencing almost anyone. *there might be 1 rando out there kind of thing who needs it.

So I get it that you might see me as that rando right now; but I am not 'random' as it were. I'm just not going with the flow of the masses, because that's how buffalo used to be run off cliffs back in the day.

https://headsmashedin.ca/

This place is just south of me by a few hours drive or so. I link to it, because I figure it's a good starting point for people to maybe start to understand why running with the herd isn't always a good idea. Yes, even in terms of how language operates. How so?

Imagine this.

What if a group of people out there has decided they want to pull an elaborate ruse on the English speaking nations of the world, particularly the 'west'. How would you do this?

Well, by replacing the definitions of important words that we already had what should have been very concrete meanings.

By doing this on a slow but steady basis, you can change how a nation of people operates and thinks, because you are now controlling their language directly.

Now this may not be actually happening today as described, because there may not be that shadowy group... but actually, there kind of is.

Prior to 2020, it was pretty well known within certain circles that Putin and co over in Russia were attempting to do exactly this kind of thing through multiple avenues of agitprop and misinformation.

But how do you prove this, when everything is suddenly conspiracy if you talk about it?

So far, the war with Ukraine is helping in one thing in all of this.

Show you all how Russia operates in doing the whole cry bully tactic. By calling out others for doing that which they are doing themselves, etc. Because of this, people are now looking deeper into what Putin is actually doing, instead of just what he is saying.

And it's glorious, because when you all start to get on that same level, you are all going to start seeing why

I

Am

Right.

But it's going to take a while, and it did for Putin as well. Him and his cronies and their cronies and so on and so forth all had a good 2 decades for sure where they were doing this, very slowly eroding away our ability to communicate effectively by creating false words/symbols/meanings and false issues to help re-define them.

At then of the day, any time you see humanity acting in unison on something, or in big groups at least; you should always look further in to why and if you should even be part of it. Many buffalo could have survived if they just looked back and saw that the humans chasing them could be trampled instead. Instead, they ran off cliffs to run in their own head. This is what is being done to our language over time, and thus us with it. People start to not make sense to each other, and so they fight each other instead of the real problem. Of course, if they then turn in unison again against that real problem, you should look at the bigger picture again. Why?

Because humanity being in mass agreement on anything means they are often being misled somehow. If they are being told the whole truth of the matter, then there will always be more questions.

So while I am not saying unity is bad... I am saying that when things are being changed, like our language; just to achieve it... you should ask yourself why this unity is so important, before you end up running off a cliff.

Now, with that said, I'll go about the rest of my day and life walking in the other direction that seems safer.

And that has always been against the grain of society.

Edit: So I just found this article and it dawned on me that it's quite possibly the best example as to why language cannot just be changed willy nilly. I've only read partially into it so far, but wanted to get this edit done fast before you have had a chance to see this comment.

https://www.science.org/content/article/computers-ace-iq-tes...

If you are devising tests for AI, there need to be strict rules. Otherwise that AI will utilize the loopholes instead. This can make for interesting discoveries, sure; like with TAS speed runs of mario for instance... But ultimately if you are trying to create AI that can operate within our world in a way that we can operate with it; we need strict rules.

Words/symbols changing meaning just because some group of people agree with each other is not copacetic to that.