Профиль

Its technically not a lie if i never check

I like telling conservatives that the testerone levels are dropping because cars. We make every adult spend hours every day operating a machine that kills risk takers, so there's fewer risk takers.

Strange as a batman???? Surely if Hulk is Spiderman Strange is

I saw "korean national up in the air" and thought the hypothetical reader was still playing basketball from earlier in the sentence

Man after my own heart.

imagine if you shout "do the werehamsters" and they have no idea what you mean so they try to improvise something and it sucks and then everyone looks at you like "why did you want this"

Ooh nooOOoOooOoO graham!! That game is reactionary!!

I love a mildly damning review that makes me really want to see every movie discussed

hell yeah little critter get it

This is historically accurate, I think. Like if you were in ancient greece you'd have only seen it performed live and probably by different guys over the years and there would be enough improv that you want to yell about your favorite bits to make sure performers include them.

sounds like the warhammer 40k rpgs

i feel like if technical precision helped with the facism problem we could predict the least fascist country would be Germany

The original claim was that without active enforcement, miscommunication would get worse. The means to make the argument you need to show communication being better in the past, and also being better in the present in places that emphasized definition standardization.

Like I feel like the linguists would be way louder if they could claim bad dictionary adherence destroyed a language or a country or something in the 1800s

I dont think your simple model conforms well to the data.

what are you basing that on

the dictionary comes after the words. It updates every now and then based on how the words have changed. It does not enforce the definitions. Random people enforce the definitions, and while they may use the dictionary as a reference, they usually don't.

this IS the attempt to redefine a word! Nobody ever used it to mean "guy who has had some story ideas but has not written 10,000 words"

Your position is "Language, the way we describe the full vastness of the human experience, should be less flexible, and in particular I'd like to define a word in a way that's completely useless, and I don't understand why anyone would be against that" and you think you're the logical one?

Yes now, you're getting it, that's how linguistics always works. You can use any words you want BUT the people who see the words can say it sounds stupid and you should've done it differently, and boy do they have opinions about words important to social roles.