Are you going to apply this principle consistently and tell me the DPRK is democratic? I ask because that would be a deeply stupid claim to make, but we’d hate for you to be inconsistent.
I don’t indentify with the word democratic. But, I think the difference is it’s pretty clear that very few people would interpret the DPRK to be democratic, whereas clearly many people commonly understood the USSR to be communist. And, the meaning of words comes from how people understand them. That’s descriptivism.
Descriptivism is when you’re wrong. 50% of the participants in this conversation say so, therefore it’s true.
Similarly, if the majority of people take the word “Juden” to mean subhuman monsters of a specific ethnoreligious group that are a threat to society that should be rounded up and genocided. Why are they wrong from the perspective of linguistic prescriptivism?
What’s the linguistic prescriptivist definition of communism? None of what you’ve said has anything to do with definitions - only assigning now meaningless labels.
Descriptivism isn’t about the majority deciding a definition. It’s about communicating to be understood. If you argue that the USSR was capitalist people will disagree, you might be right if you interpret capitalist through your definition though. People disagreeing with your definition doesn’t make you wrong, but it is useless, ineffective communication. Either bundle your definition with your message, or use definitions that others would understand (and that’s where descriptivism comes in).
You’re talking about the application of labels, not shaping a definition. What’s the linguistically prescriptive definition of communism that’s descriptive of these regimes?
If most people think I’m straight, but I’m enjoying getting railed by 10 dudes 10 times per day, I’m not straight - they’re wrong. If everyone agrees that getting railed by 10 dudes 10 times per day is straight, that’sprescriptivism descriptivism.
I didn’t mention prescriptivism, I only mentioned descripticism. The usefulness of words comes from their understanding, not their use. If you use 100% valid dictionary words but not how people commonly understand them, then you’re failing to communicate. In this case, you have a definition of communism contrary to how people understand it, so you should either clarify your definition of it, or not be so attached to the word that you insist on using it.
I didn’t mention prescriptivism, I only mentioned descripticism
My mistake - I’m muddling my prescriptivism / descriptivism terminology (I’ll edit the terms in the post)
The usefulness of words comes from their understanding, not their use. If you use 100% valid dictionary words but not how people commonly understand them, then you’re failing to communicate.
It doesn’t make me any less correct or them any less wrong though.
In this case, you have a definition of communism contrary to how people understand it, so you should either clarify your definition of it, or not be so attached to the word that you insist on using it.
I’ve given a key reason why they’re wrong (lack of worker enfranchisement), and pointed to the dictionary for my definition - any credible one will do, if in doubt, use the OED.
You’re not seeing your hypocrisy here though - you’re not talking about definitions - you’re talking about labels. People calling China communist isn’t a definition that I can measure other countries against - it’s a label entirely devoid of meaning. That’s meaningless, that’s a failure to provide a definition, and that would make me straight while secretly getting railed by those hundreds of dudes - even when 100% of the people saying I’m straight (making it true to what you call a descriptivist) would say that behaviour makes me gay (an actual descriptivist definition).
What are the characteristics people are pointing to when they say China, the USSR and DPRK are communist?This is what a descriptivist definition is.
I like using the dictionary definition, myself.
Are you going to apply this principle consistently and tell me the DPRK is democratic? I ask because that would be a deeply stupid claim to make, but we’d hate for you to be inconsistent.
I don’t indentify with the word democratic. But, I think the difference is it’s pretty clear that very few people would interpret the DPRK to be democratic, whereas clearly many people commonly understood the USSR to be communist. And, the meaning of words comes from how people understand them. That’s descriptivism.
Oh - I get it.
Descriptivism is when you’re wrong. 50% of the participants in this conversation say so, therefore it’s true.
Similarly, if the majority of people take the word “Juden” to mean subhuman monsters of a specific ethnoreligious group that are a threat to society that should be rounded up and genocided. Why are they wrong from the perspective of linguistic prescriptivism?
What’s the linguistic prescriptivist definition of communism? None of what you’ve said has anything to do with definitions - only assigning now meaningless labels.
Descriptivism isn’t about the majority deciding a definition. It’s about communicating to be understood. If you argue that the USSR was capitalist people will disagree, you might be right if you interpret capitalist through your definition though. People disagreeing with your definition doesn’t make you wrong, but it is useless, ineffective communication. Either bundle your definition with your message, or use definitions that others would understand (and that’s where descriptivism comes in).
You’re talking about the application of labels, not shaping a definition. What’s the linguistically prescriptive definition of communism that’s descriptive of these regimes?
If most people think I’m straight, but I’m enjoying getting railed by 10 dudes 10 times per day, I’m not straight - they’re wrong. If everyone agrees that getting railed by 10 dudes 10 times per day is straight, that’s
prescriptivismdescriptivism.Prescriptivismdescriptivism isn’t relevant here.I didn’t mention prescriptivism, I only mentioned descripticism. The usefulness of words comes from their understanding, not their use. If you use 100% valid dictionary words but not how people commonly understand them, then you’re failing to communicate. In this case, you have a definition of communism contrary to how people understand it, so you should either clarify your definition of it, or not be so attached to the word that you insist on using it.
My mistake - I’m muddling my prescriptivism / descriptivism terminology (I’ll edit the terms in the post)
It doesn’t make me any less correct or them any less wrong though.
I’ve given a key reason why they’re wrong (lack of worker enfranchisement), and pointed to the dictionary for my definition - any credible one will do, if in doubt, use the OED.
You’re not seeing your hypocrisy here though - you’re not talking about definitions - you’re talking about labels. People calling China communist isn’t a definition that I can measure other countries against - it’s a label entirely devoid of meaning. That’s meaningless, that’s a failure to provide a definition, and that would make me straight while secretly getting railed by those hundreds of dudes - even when 100% of the people saying I’m straight (making it true to what you call a descriptivist) would say that behaviour makes me gay (an actual descriptivist definition).
What are the characteristics people are pointing to when they say China, the USSR and DPRK are communist? This is what a descriptivist definition is.