Total Posts:194|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ban the word "feminist"?

YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:47:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The word "feminist" in my mind has managed to equate itself with "contradictory," "bigot," and "extremist."
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Do you feel the same toward the word liberal?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:15:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:47:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The word "feminist" in my mind has managed to equate itself with "contradictory," "bigot," and "extremist."

Yup.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:03:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Do you feel the same toward the word liberal?

No.

Wanna call me a sexist because of it? Go for it. I dare you.
Tsar of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:27:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:15:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:03:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Do you feel the same toward the word liberal?

No.

I see a similar phenomenon. They're both wide camps with differing interpretations. Generally, people think that theirs is correct and others within their camp are misrepresenting the truth. I've seen you say that in regards to liberals who oppose neo-conservative military policies or who embrace multiculturalism. It's language. Lots of interpretations, not a whole lot of consensus, and hella self-righteous anger.

Wanna call me a sexist because of it? Go for it. I dare you.

Lol what?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:47:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The word "feminist" in my mind has managed to equate itself with "contradictory," "bigot," and "extremist."

lol
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:29:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:27:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:15:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:03:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Do you feel the same toward the word liberal?

No.

I see a similar phenomenon. They're both wide camps with differing interpretations. Generally, people think that theirs is correct and others within their camp are misrepresenting the truth. I've seen you say that in regards to liberals who oppose neo-conservative military policies or who embrace multiculturalism. It's language. Lots of interpretations, not a whole lot of consensus, and hella self-righteous anger.

I am a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, but I'm less of a hawk than Lindsey Gharam or John McCain. I'm sort of between Clinton and Bush, 43.

Liberal foreign policy is not a settled issue.

Wanna call me a sexist because of it? Go for it. I dare you.

Lol what?
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:37:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Semantic saturation has nothing to do with this. It describes a phenomenon in which the repeated utterance of a word causes the word to lose meaning over the course of uttering it, but not after. For example, if you say "dog" 50 times, the word starts to sound foreign and weird.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:40:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:29:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:27:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:15:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:03:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Do you feel the same toward the word liberal?

No.

I see a similar phenomenon. They're both wide camps with differing interpretations. Generally, people think that theirs is correct and others within their camp are misrepresenting the truth. I've seen you say that in regards to liberals who oppose neo-conservative military policies or who embrace multiculturalism. It's language. Lots of interpretations, not a whole lot of consensus, and hella self-righteous anger.

I am a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, but I'm less of a hawk than Lindsey Gharam or John McCain. I'm sort of between Clinton and Bush, 43.

Liberal foreign policy is not a settled issue.

Sure. I'll take yer word for the inner workings of modern liberalism. But I was trying to point out the analogous (and contentious) nature of both words. Neither are settled. So why retire one and not the other?

Wanna call me a sexist because of it? Go for it. I dare you.

Lol what?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:52:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:40:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:29:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:27:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:15:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:03:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Do you feel the same toward the word liberal?

No.

I see a similar phenomenon. They're both wide camps with differing interpretations. Generally, people think that theirs is correct and others within their camp are misrepresenting the truth. I've seen you say that in regards to liberals who oppose neo-conservative military policies or who embrace multiculturalism. It's language. Lots of interpretations, not a whole lot of consensus, and hella self-righteous anger.

I am a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, but I'm less of a hawk than Lindsey Gharam or John McCain. I'm sort of between Clinton and Bush, 43.

Liberal foreign policy is not a settled issue.

Sure. I'll take yer word for the inner workings of modern liberalism. But I was trying to point out the analogous (and contentious) nature of both words. Neither are settled. So why retire one and not the other?

Liberal is not overused. Feminist is.

With the exception of Ben Afflek, there really aren't "dumb" liberals. The number of stupid celebrities that describe themselves as feminists disgrace the concept.

Wanna call me a sexist because of it? Go for it. I dare you.

Lol what?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:53:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:37:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Semantic saturation has nothing to do with this. It describes a phenomenon in which the repeated utterance of a word causes the word to lose meaning over the course of uttering it, but not after. For example, if you say "dog" 50 times, the word starts to sound foreign and weird.

Do you know what the word "ubiquitous" means?
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:00:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

I don't know about banned, maybe broken down into subcategories so that accuracy can be established.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:01:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think there are basically two meanings of feminism. One is the dictionary definition, and the other is the "label". The "label" version comes with a lot of extra baggage not associated with the dictionary definition. For many people, the word "feminism" implies extremism simply because those who call themselves "feminists" often support extreme feminist policies. Going after words isn't going to solve anything.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:02:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:53:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:37:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Semantic saturation has nothing to do with this. It describes a phenomenon in which the repeated utterance of a word causes the word to lose meaning over the course of uttering it, but not after. For example, if you say "dog" 50 times, the word starts to sound foreign and weird.

Do you know what the word "ubiquitous" means?

Yes, I can even use it in a sentence. But I won't, because the sentence I'm thinking of is not very nice :)
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:02:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:53:10 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:37:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Semantic saturation has nothing to do with this. It describes a phenomenon in which the repeated utterance of a word causes the word to lose meaning over the course of uttering it, but not after. For example, if you say "dog" 50 times, the word starts to sound foreign and weird.

Do you know what the word "ubiquitous" means?

Yes, I can even use it in a sentence. But I won't, because the sentence I'm thinking of is not very nice :)

...
Tsar of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:52:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:40:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:29:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:27:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:15:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:03:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Do you feel the same toward the word liberal?

No.

I see a similar phenomenon. They're both wide camps with differing interpretations. Generally, people think that theirs is correct and others within their camp are misrepresenting the truth. I've seen you say that in regards to liberals who oppose neo-conservative military policies or who embrace multiculturalism. It's language. Lots of interpretations, not a whole lot of consensus, and hella self-righteous anger.

I am a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, but I'm less of a hawk than Lindsey Gharam or John McCain. I'm sort of between Clinton and Bush, 43.

Liberal foreign policy is not a settled issue.

Sure. I'll take yer word for the inner workings of modern liberalism. But I was trying to point out the analogous (and contentious) nature of both words. Neither are settled. So why retire one and not the other?

Liberal is not overused. Feminist is.

With the exception of Ben Afflek, there really aren't "dumb" liberals. The number of stupid celebrities that describe themselves as feminists disgrace the concept.

Lol whatever. Guess the poll doesn't really matter anyways.

Wanna call me a sexist because of it? Go for it. I dare you.

Lol what?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:20:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

This logic is flawed. The words "a" "the" and "and" are also ubiquitous, and from that premise you cannot reach the conclusion they are overused or that they are meaningless...unless you are seeking to ban those words as well.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Dylan was right. Your own link provides an example of semantic satiation (http://en.wikipedia.org...)...it has nothing to do with what you think you are talking about.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:20:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

This logic is flawed. The words "a" "the" and "and" are also ubiquitous, and from that premise you cannot reach the conclusion they are overused or that they are meaningless...unless you are seeking to ban those words as well.

So, in your view an article and a noun have the same function in the English language?

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Dylan was right. Your own link provides an example of semantic satiation (http://en.wikipedia.org...)...it has nothing to do with what you think you are talking about.

That's an interesting theory. But, perhaps you missed the concept. I'll leave it here for your general edification:

Semantic Satiation is....

is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

And the buffalo sentence you used, actually, is not an example of semantic satiation in the strictest sense. That is why you will find it linked under the "see also" section of the appropriate page because while "similar to" semantic satiation it is not an actual example of the phenomenon.

This is an astonishingly simple concept to grasp, and one which I should think is not especially controversial. Whether the word "feminist" is overused might be up for dispute, but the concept of semantic satiation is not.

You, and Dylan, should read more carefully in the future. When you find something under the "see also" section of a wikipedia page, that is not an example of what the page is about. It's just something more or less loosely related to the page's subject. This is fairly basic, but, again, perhaps you just failed to read carefully. I'm sure you won't make that careless error before you mistakenly attempt to correct people in the future.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:32:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:27:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:20:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

This logic is flawed. The words "a" "the" and "and" are also ubiquitous, and from that premise you cannot reach the conclusion they are overused or that they are meaningless...unless you are seeking to ban those words as well.

So, in your view an article and a noun have the same function in the English language?

Irrelevant. What is relevant to the point you're trying to make is the ubiquitousness of a word. Given the same level or higher level of ubiquitousness, a word does not become overused nor does it lose meaning.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Dylan was right. Your own link provides an example of semantic satiation (http://en.wikipedia.org...)...it has nothing to do with what you think you are talking about.

That's an interesting theory. But, perhaps you missed the concept. I'll leave it here for your general edification:

Semantic Satiation is....

is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

And the buffalo sentence you used, actually, is not an example of semantic satiation in the strictest sense. That is why you will find it linked under the "see also" section of the appropriate page because while "similar to" semantic satiation it is not an actual example of the phenomenon.

It actually is. If you said that sentence, most people would not consider it to be grammatically correct unless it was parsed down (i.e. the word "buffalo" has temporarily lost meaning through the course of uttering that sentence).

This is an astonishingly simple concept to grasp, and one which I should think is not especially controversial. Whether the word "feminist" is overused might be up for dispute, but the concept of semantic satiation is not.

It is astonishingly simple to grasp and multiple people have grasped it. That does not make your assertions logically correct however.

You, and Dylan, should read more carefully in the future. When you find something under the "see also" section of a wikipedia page, that is not an example of what the page is about. It's just something more or less loosely related to the page's subject. This is fairly basic, but, again, perhaps you just failed to read carefully. I'm sure you won't make that careless error before you mistakenly attempt to correct people in the future.

Of course it isn't NECESSARILY true...but in this case it just happens to be true.

Again, yes, this is fairly basic, but that does not mean that you have grasped a basic concept.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:40:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:32:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:27:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:20:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

This logic is flawed. The words "a" "the" and "and" are also ubiquitous, and from that premise you cannot reach the conclusion they are overused or that they are meaningless...unless you are seeking to ban those words as well.

So, in your view an article and a noun have the same function in the English language?

Irrelevant. What is relevant to the point you're trying to make is the ubiquitousness of a word. Given the same level or higher level of ubiquitousness, a word does not become overused nor does it lose meaning.

Actually, it's not... because an article like "a" or "the," etc. doesn't "do" the same thing that a noun does. A noun describes a person, place, thing or idea/concept. An article does not have that quality. Articles serve a grammatical function, whereas nouns do not.

Talking about semantic satiation in the context of articles, when articles are words that are already themselves more or less meaningless on their own, doesn't make a lot of sense. Articles, unlike nouns, do not describe "things." They do not do the same thing, so it's not irrelevant.

I know you haven't done any real or substantive reading on the concept of semantic satiation because if you had you wouldn't be raising that objection, because it makes no sense. But, worse yet is the fact that you're assailing the concept of semantic satiation in one level of thought because you don't understand it, and then saying that I don't understand it in another. That's unfortunate, but ultimately not something i'm especially concerned about.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Dylan was right. Your own link provides an example of semantic satiation (http://en.wikipedia.org...)...it has nothing to do with what you think you are talking about.

That's an interesting theory. But, perhaps you missed the concept. I'll leave it here for your general edification:

Semantic Satiation is....

is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

And the buffalo sentence you used, actually, is not an example of semantic satiation in the strictest sense. That is why you will find it linked under the "see also" section of the appropriate page because while "similar to" semantic satiation it is not an actual example of the phenomenon.

It actually is. If you said that sentence, most people would not consider it to be grammatically correct unless it was parsed down (i.e. the word "buffalo" has temporarily lost meaning through the course of uttering that sentence).

This is an astonishingly simple concept to grasp, and one which I should think is not especially controversial. Whether the word "feminist" is overused might be up for dispute, but the concept of semantic satiation is not.

It is astonishingly simple to grasp and multiple people have grasped it. That does not make your assertions logically correct however.

Sometimes when I read the comments that people write, and I see them misuse terms and concepts, or in other ways butcher modern English usage's standards of propriety, I am ambivalent. Other times, I just lol.

There was once a time when I'd try to walk someone through something that they didn't understand. I have since learned that this is usually a mistake, for certain people and I've gotten pretty good at identifying those who are "beyond help" in that way.

So... this is where I say... it's very clear to me that when you read the sentence I quoted to you, that you don't understand it. That's ok, but I'm not going to argue with you over something like that. You're "not" going to understand it, and I've got better things to do with my time.

You, and Dylan, should read more carefully in the future. When you find something under the "see also" section of a wikipedia page, that is not an example of what the page is about. It's just something more or less loosely related to the page's subject. This is fairly basic, but, again, perhaps you just failed to read carefully. I'm sure you won't make that careless error before you mistakenly attempt to correct people in the future.

Of course it isn't NECESSARILY true...but in this case it just happens to be true.

Again, yes, this is fairly basic, but that does not mean that you have grasped a basic concept.

So... you've basically made a mistake because something you "thought" was something, turned out "not to be that thing" and you made that mistake because you failed to grasp the concept that I was talking about. This is my not so subtle way of saying that you need to read more carefully, or just not respond to stuff.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:52:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:40:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:32:21 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:27:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:20:34 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:35:02 PM, YYW wrote:
NY Mag, reporting on a Time poll:

http://nymag.com...

I voted to ban it. The word is ubiquitous, therefore it is overused, and therefore it is meaningless.

This logic is flawed. The words "a" "the" and "and" are also ubiquitous, and from that premise you cannot reach the conclusion they are overused or that they are meaningless...unless you are seeking to ban those words as well.

So, in your view an article and a noun have the same function in the English language?

Irrelevant. What is relevant to the point you're trying to make is the ubiquitousness of a word. Given the same level or higher level of ubiquitousness, a word does not become overused nor does it lose meaning.

Actually, it's not... because an article like "a" or "the," etc. doesn't "do" the same thing that a noun does. A noun describes a person, place, thing or idea/concept. An article does not have that quality. Articles serve a grammatical function, whereas nouns do not.

At this point I have to ask you if you are aware of the definition of "ubiquitous"?

Talking about semantic satiation in the context of articles, when articles are words that are already themselves more or less meaningless on their own, doesn't make a lot of sense. Articles, unlike nouns, do not describe "things." They do not do the same thing, so it's not irrelevant.

They are not meaningless on their own. They have meaning relevant to their usage as an article.

Articles do indeed describe "things". "An article is a kind of adjective which is always used with and gives some information about a noun. "
http://eslus.com...

Are adjectives meaningless on their own? Do you seek to ban all adjectives from the English language?

I know you haven't done any real or substantive reading on the concept of semantic satiation because if you had you wouldn't be raising that objection, because it makes no sense. But, worse yet is the fact that you're assailing the concept of semantic satiation in one level of thought because you don't understand it, and then saying that I don't understand it in another. That's unfortunate, but ultimately not something i'm especially concerned about.

I'm fairly certain this entire paragraph is completely false and wholly unwarranted. You've provided the definition of semantic satiation and I have applied that definition. If you think I have not done any substantive reading on this concept, it would only be because you have yet to proffer anything of substance. The problem would thus not lie with me.

It's a phenomenon called "semantic satiation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

To restore meaning, it's got to be retired for a while.

Dylan was right. Your own link provides an example of semantic satiation (http://en.wikipedia.org...)...it has nothing to do with what you think you are talking about.

That's an interesting theory. But, perhaps you missed the concept. I'll leave it here for your general edification:

Semantic Satiation is....

is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

And the buffalo sentence you used, actually, is not an example of semantic satiation in the strictest sense. That is why you will find it linked under the "see also" section of the appropriate page because while "similar to" semantic satiation it is not an actual example of the phenomenon.

It actually is. If you said that sentence, most people would not consider it to be grammatically correct unless it was parsed down (i.e. the word "buffalo" has temporarily lost meaning through the course of uttering that sentence).

This is an astonishingly simple concept to grasp, and one which I should think is not especially controversial. Whether the word "feminist" is overused might be up for dispute, but the concept of semantic satiation is not.

It is astonishingly simple to grasp and multiple people have grasped it. That does not make your assertions logically correct however.

Sometimes when I read the comments that people write, and I see them misuse terms and concepts, or in other ways butcher modern English usage's standards of propriety, I am ambivalent. Other times, I just lol.

Is that meant to be an insult? Perhaps you should explain why you "lol".

There was once a time when I'd try to walk someone through something that they didn't understand. I have since learned that this is usually a mistake, for certain people and I've gotten pretty good at identifying those who are "beyond help" in that way.

Ah, this is much more resembling an insult. You do realize that personal attacks are prohibited on this website, yes? Labeling someone as being "beyond help" is rather insulting, yes? You are indeed attempting to label multiple people in this thread as being "beyond help" yes?

So... this is where I say... it's very clear to me that when you read the sentence I quoted to you, that you don't understand it. That's ok, but I'm not going to argue with you over something like that. You're "not" going to understand it, and I've got better things to do with my time.

I'm fairly certain that the problem of comprehension does not lie with me or Dylan in this instance.

You, and Dylan, should read more carefully in the future. When you find something under the "see also" section of a wikipedia page, that is not an example of what the page is about. It's just something more or less loosely related to the page's subject. This is fairly basic, but, again, perhaps you just failed to read carefully. I'm sure you won't make that careless error before you mistakenly attempt to correct people in the future.

Of course it isn't NECESSARILY true...but in this case it just happens to be true.

Again, yes, this is fairly basic, but that does not mean that you have grasped a basic concept.

So... you've basically made a mistake because something you "thought" was something, turned out "not to be that thing" and you made that mistake because you failed to grasp the concept that I was talking about. This is my not so subtle way of saying that you need to read more carefully, or just not respond to stuff.

If I had failed to grasp the concept you are talking about, it's because you have failed to adequately present that concept in a logical fashion. Whatever concept you think you are talking about is not relevant to semantic satiation.

Again multiple people have pointed this out. You can continue to be insulting if you like, or you can attempt to ameliorate this situation in a civil fashion. The choice lies with you.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:55:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:52:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I want you to try and understand the concept of semantic satiation overnight. Give it some deep thought. Work through it. Then, get back to me if you understand it.

I also want you to think through what I actually said, and what it means in this context. Maybe you should read the Time article linked w/in the NY Mag article, if the context is still confusing to you.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:08:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:55:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:52:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I want you to try and understand the concept of semantic satiation overnight. Give it some deep thought. Work through it. Then, get back to me if you understand it.

I also want you to think through what I actually said, and what it means in this context. Maybe you should read the Time article linked w/in the NY Mag article, if the context is still confusing to you.

Enough thought was given to fully comprehend your point, which was logically flawed and was broken down and proven to be a false statement.

You also gave a two part argument (P: The word [feminist] is ubiquitous, and C: therefore it is overused) and you were not able to keep your argumentation relevant to it. Not that I blame you for that, the assertion was wrong to begin with.

It's not hard to comprehend meaningless babble once identified as such. Illogical statements such as the ones you have made in this thread qualify as meaningless babble. It is much, much harder to comprehend the point one is trying to make however if all they spout in a certain instance is meaningless babble.

I'm fairly certain you are attempting to make a point materially different from what you have asserted in this thread, as your core argument in this thread is logically unsound and without valid meaning.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:09:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:08:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:55:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:52:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I want you to try and understand the concept of semantic satiation overnight. Give it some deep thought. Work through it. Then, get back to me if you understand it.

I also want you to think through what I actually said, and what it means in this context. Maybe you should read the Time article linked w/in the NY Mag article, if the context is still confusing to you.

Enough thought was given to fully comprehend your point, which was logically flawed and was broken down and proven to be a false statement.

You also gave a two part argument (P: The word [feminist] is ubiquitous, and C: therefore it is overused) and you were not able to keep your argumentation relevant to it. Not that I blame you for that, the assertion was wrong to begin with.

It's not hard to comprehend meaningless babble once identified as such. Illogical statements such as the ones you have made in this thread qualify as meaningless babble. It is much, much harder to comprehend the point one is trying to make however if all they spout in a certain instance is meaningless babble.

I'm fairly certain you are attempting to make a point materially different from what you have asserted in this thread, as your core argument in this thread is logically unsound and without valid meaning.

w/e
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:10:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:09:00 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:08:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

w/e

I'm glad you have chosen to resolve this amicably, and sincerely hope you continue to resolve disagreements in this amicable fashion instead of resorting to the insults you have lobbed in this thread.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:11:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:10:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:09:00 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:08:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

w/e

I'm glad you have chosen to resolve this amicably, and sincerely hope you continue to resolve disagreements in this amicable fashion instead of resorting to the insults you have lobbed in this thread.

Pushing it further with posts like this doesn't help. That is, if there is even a problem.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:14:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:10:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:09:00 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:08:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

w/e

I'm glad you have chosen to resolve this amicably, and sincerely hope you continue to resolve disagreements in this amicable fashion instead of resorting to the insults you have lobbed in this thread.

That's a bold statement, wrichirw. There isn't a disagreement, though. There's an issue of fact which you don't understand, and a failure to comprehend on your part that I do not have the time or will to lead you through.

Saying "w/e" is essentially saying that it is not worth my time to continue the discussion with you. It's not "resolving" a conflict, because there was never a conflict. It's you're lacking of reading comprehension ability meeting my ambivalence to that fact.
Tsar of DDO
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:14:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:11:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:10:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:09:00 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:08:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

w/e

I'm glad you have chosen to resolve this amicably, and sincerely hope you continue to resolve disagreements in this amicable fashion instead of resorting to the insults you have lobbed in this thread.

Pushing it further with posts like this doesn't help. That is, if there is even a problem.

How am I pushing anything? Have I been insulting? No. Have I counseled against further insult in the future? Yes. Have I made sound suggestions as to how to curb unwarranted behavior? Yes.

If anything, I'm "pushing" things in the "right" direction, "right" in this instance being relevant to conforming with site conduct.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:18:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:14:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:11:42 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:10:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:09:00 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:08:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

w/e

I'm glad you have chosen to resolve this amicably, and sincerely hope you continue to resolve disagreements in this amicable fashion instead of resorting to the insults you have lobbed in this thread.

Pushing it further with posts like this doesn't help. That is, if there is even a problem.

How am I pushing anything? Have I been insulting? No. Have I counseled against further insult in the future? Yes. Have I made sound suggestions as to how to curb unwarranted behavior? Yes.

You extended something that doesn't need to be extended. If YYW says "w/e", assume he's done. Don't talk to him, and especially don't give him something to reply to.

If anything, I'm "pushing" things in the "right" direction, "right" in this instance being relevant to conforming with site conduct.

Ok bud, ok.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King