• slurpyslop@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn’t the play you seem to think it is

    the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it’s possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry

    I’m sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.

    it’s more that they don’t have a definition at all

    they use it similarly to “woke”, in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context

    if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you’d get something like “person i disagree with to the point of dislike”, at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as “i don’t like people i don’t like”

    it’s completely dissimilar

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’m boiling it down because this isn’t the kind of platform to express a thousand words. I use the dictionary, as you should. You seem to make a word which it is not. That may work in your world and it may work in the Republican world, but that doesn’t mean people with a common language have to accept it. Both you and Republicans are trying demean others using language which is not applicable.

      • slurpyslop@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        you’re not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you’re saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary

        those are two completely different things and it’s astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with “i’m sure you can do better than that”