paper-machine comments on Local Ordinances of Fun - Less Wrong

18 Post author: Alicorn 18 June 2012 03:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 June 2012 08:25:02PM *  8 points [-]

Especially with so many competing standards. Personally, I use the singular 'they.' I mean, yes, it's not technically correct, but people understand you.

And, after all, 'em eir ey' aren't technically correct either. On account of not being words.

I have mellowed in the last year or so. I no longer downvote every comment that uses that kind of language. They no longer have the same close ties with an abhorrent (local) political agenda so I can now consider them more or less acceptable.

EDIT: Most unexpected significant and rapid downvoting of one of my comments ever. I retract it, including the downvote policy change - I have returned to considering the subject as distasteful politics.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 June 2012 08:28:37PM *  1 point [-]

Neologisms are still words.

EDIT: As wedrifid implies, words are strings of characters with socially established meanings. Just because he doesn't belong to the social group that uses those words to mean those things doesn't mean they stop being words. It'd be like saying {klama} isn't a word merely because only around a thousand people or so have ever used it to mean "go/come."

Comment author: wedrifid 19 June 2012 09:29:41PM *  -1 points [-]

Neologisms are still words.

Sure, ok. "Not words in this particular established language". Arglebargle witzot phlerg.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 June 2012 09:55:41PM 14 points [-]

You mis-spelled "flerg".

Comment author: [deleted] 19 June 2012 10:21:15PM 0 points [-]

Must have missed my edit where I explicitly mentioned social groups. Also, see Wittgenstein's comments on private language.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 June 2012 10:26:34PM -1 points [-]

Must have missed my edit

No. Nor is that conclusion suggested by my reply.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 June 2012 10:29:39PM 0 points [-]

What was your reply supposed to suggest?