You're viewing part of a thread.
Its an antisemitic action. If you don't intend on doing antisemitic things, do something else. It doesn't mean that genocide isn't happening in Palestine. It doesn't mean that words don't have secondary meanings either.
I'm ok for ad. populums but thanks all the same. Its a very sad reflection on you that you would think it would bother someone.
If I didn't understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.
Again, why do you HAVE to use that one word. Why can't it be replaced by fascist, genocidal facsist or whatever? Why do you refuse to back down over using the one word that makes people dismiss what people say about Palestine?
Its almost as if you care more for calling Jewish people nazis than you do raising awareness of the genocide going on in gaza.
It's not action, it's expression.
If I didn’t understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.
Hahahahahhahahaha. I can't believe you wrote that. This is THE most hilarious and ironic thing I've read in weeks. Your understanding of linguistics is so bad, that you're using it in place of "language", thinking they are synonyms, which they are NOT. That is. BRILLIANT. Fking saved. :D Thank you.
Again, what's with the obsession to make this about Judaism? Why do you constantly try to shift discussion from Israel to Jewish people in general? Why?
If one chooses on purpose to call Israelis Nazis, perhaps it's because it's extremely ironic the #neveragain people are committing a holocaust themselves. Since you accept that Israel is genociding Palestinians, do you not find it ironic?
So here are the facts: Israel is doing heinous fascist shit. "Nazi" is a synonym for fascist.
You don't disagree with the first fact. You don't disagree with the second fact. But you're still not ready to accept, even in part, that you didn't understand what "prescriptive" and "descriptive" meant before this thread and now you're DESPERATELY trying to save your spectacular fail, by trying somehow to ignore your own errors.
"The very basics of linguistics"
Yeah, not knowing the very basics would preclude someone from reading. Your unhinged reply was very funny though. The more "haha"s you write, the more believable and less desperate it sounds.....
Its very ironic yes. Still doesn't make it ok or not OK though does it? Its so sad to see someone who thinks they're so much smarter than they actually are have to resort to this kind of thing, to maintain their delusion.
The point is, it doesn't matter if the use here prescriptive or not. It would still fall under the definition of an antisemitic thing to do. It bizzare that you ever convinced yourself that it would change anything. If you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism, then thats one thing but to think you can get around it with something like that is just tragic.
Yeah, not knowing the very basics would preclude someone from reading. Your unhinged reply was very funny though. The more "haha"s you write, the more believable and less desperate it sounds…
No. Fucking. Way. This is comedy gold and you're genuinely making my sides hurt, as I broke a rib on the weekend and I can't help laughing. Even though I explicitly explained your last mistake, you made it again, digging in your heels to your stupidity, when I gave you an out from that shame? ABsolutely brilliant. :D
LINGUISTICS /lɪŋˈɡwɪstɪks/ noun noun: linguistics
the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, comparative linguistics, and structural linguistics.
as opposed to "LANGUAGE"
LANGUAGE /ˈlaŋɡwɪdʒ/ noun noun: language; plural noun: languages
>the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture.Not knowing THE LANGUAGE would preclude you from reading. Not knowing linguistics doesn't. That's like saying that if you haven't studied psychology, that you can't have emotions. Or that you can't drive a car if you're not a mechanic. Or that you can't vote if you're not a politician.
Absolutely HILARIOUS of a reply, which makes it very clear for anyone reading this just how valid your opinions on language use are. :D
Oh, so maybe you could explain how someone could read without any knowledge of even basic grammar or knowledge of the structure of the language they're reading?
So, are you saying you reject their definition of antisemitism or not? I must have missed it in amongst all of your maturity in dealing with opposing opinions.
Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one is different?
Just like using language and studying it? Humans have something called language acquisition. It's a term you'd definitely hear in any sort of a beginner linguistics class, probably on the first lesson. There's also a very strong reason why it's not called "linguistics acquisition". Can you perhaps already piece it together from all the things I've explicitly tought you? (And you don't understand how hard you're projecting when you write things like "maybe you should've googled a few things before replying"?)
See the thing I said about you being literally unable to accept mistakes? This is one of them. And you won't be able to accept the fact that you confused "linguistics" with "language". When it's right there, for all to see.
#HI-LA-RI-OUS
You would still need to has some basic understanding of grammar and to have studied the structure, grammar and syntax to be able to read. You walked yourself into a dead end there and now you're trying to insult your way out of it. It might work on some but that won't work on me.
I've made lots of mistakes in my life. One would be engaging with someone like you, with such poor social skills. There you go, one mistake admitted. So, no only are you wrong, there's literally no way you could ever tell if I was
literally unable to accept mistakes
It seems that, instead, you were just shame dumbing from yourself, all the while claiming that I'm projecting, without a hint of irony. I haven't seen it to your extent in the wild for a long time.
You would still need to has some basic understanding of grammar and to have studied the structure, grammar and syntax to be able to read.
No, you do not. Again, the very basics of linguistics. That is exactly like you saying that to drive a car you need to understand the basics of mechanical engineering. Then you'd make the argument that "to understand how brakes and the accelerator work you need to understand Newton's laws of motions, the basics of mechanical engineering".
No-one would claim that. And you know that. You know how ridiculous you are being, and you know I know it. But again, it's not about me. It's about you. You can't admit to yourself that you've made a mistake. You can't accept having been wrong. And that quality in you will fuck your life over, mark my words.
Humans naturally possess language acquisition. You do not need to even understand the concept of syntax or grammar to be able to correctly utilise both. I honestly keep overestimating you with each reply. Like I said some replies ago, it would've been far better for you to stop replying a long time ago. Now you'll have made so many comments that removing or editing them will seem very silly indeed, and you have dug your heels in with this asinine denial of a simple mistake.
You're trying to avoid looking dumb, but the only thing you're doing to do that is making you look even dumber. Highly entertaining. But not as entertaining as this HDR version of Logan, so since you won't stop replying (because you're obsessing over this, since you can't accept being wrong), I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow. See you.
edit breaks -> brakes (see how easy it is to admit to mistakes?)
And on and on and on and on they went. They even planned to carry on the next day whether anyone was reading their replies or not and they would do so without a hint of irony.
Oh it's not about people reading the replies.
It's about you, writing replies that you'll later feel ashamed of. :)
If I didn’t understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.
You said that. You keep pretending to understand things you don't have the faintest grasp over. You have the internet. Why don't you just... check?
Come on now. Check before you write.
Its cute that you think ill ever think of you or this again, after this.
I used it colloquially. Whats your problem here? Are you the only person who can use colloquial terms? What, do you not understand the very basics of linguistics or something?
Anything but talk about you "not a hard N" argument huh?