The OP, and the amount of agreement it’s gotten here, directly contradicts this.
If one is judging how trustworthy someone is based on whether they use a certain word, then they have indeed imbued the word itself with negativity, by definition.
what’s with the reading comprehension today? not whether they use a certain word. whether they use a certain word within or without certain contexts. so no. not the word itself; the usage.
also not really important here but just for future reference, the number of people agreeing with something bears no indication toward its validity.
that’s statistics.
also no one imbued anything. i specifically said there were contexts in which it would make sense and otherwise it wouldn’t.
The OP, and the amount of agreement it’s gotten here, directly contradicts this.
If one is judging how trustworthy someone is based on whether they use a certain word, then they have indeed imbued the word itself with negativity, by definition.
what’s with the reading comprehension today? not whether they use a certain word. whether they use a certain word within or without certain contexts. so no. not the word itself; the usage.
also not really important here but just for future reference, the number of people agreeing with something bears no indication toward its validity.
What “certain contexts” does the OP mention?
But it does bear a direct indication toward the assertion that it is a thing that is done.
what are you even talking about? i mentioned contexts. you don’t seem to be able to follow the conversation.