• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes, your point is that “hunger” should be interpreted very loosely, meaning in a sort of addiction-psychology way.

    I’m saying that it simply isn’t well defined. There’s a reason we have terms like “malnurished” or “undernourished”. Your definition is only as narrow in certain contexts, e.g. “world hunger”. I personally wouldn’t use the word in the context of first-world issues either, but that’s because it’s ambiguous, not because it’s wrong.

    • @JubilantJaguar
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      So if “malnourished” is better, as you imply, let’s use that instead. The issue is not hunger by any non-academic definition of the word.

      You’ve made your case. Mine is that this is a clear example of sensationalist lexical inflation. Like calling everyone right of center a Nazi, it is intended to provoke engagement and emotion rather than to describe a fact.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I agree with you on the fact that this inflation is a problem. I just think that we need to avoid inflation in terms of complaining about it as well. As it stands now anything that’s at least not contradicting the dictionary is tolerable in my opinion. Well, at least on social media. In academia your approach is obviously best.