I don’t really understand your point. Portmanteaus and coining new words are useful in conveying complex concepts, though. If you wanted to have a conversation about parentification would you rather have one word to encompass that or have to say “the effect of having to be a care giver to your caregivers during your formative years” every time you need to reference that concept in the discussion.
What makes that a mutilation instead of more efficient?
The racism thing is confusing because racism encompasses both forms but there are specific descriptors for unique expressions of the same thing. Just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square. That’s not really redefining, systemic racism has been racism the whole time, too. We’re just aware enough to have discussions about the specific ways it effects society today.
Edit: redefining “literally” to accommodate people using incorrectly on the other hand was a misstep for the English language, though. So I don’t necessarily disagree, I just think you picked bad examples.
“-ification” is a suffix about transformation and becoming so the word works fine. Your argument it is just anti-intellectualist opinion. So who cares?
I wouldn’t say I’m an intellectualist, but I am an anti-anti-intellectualist. Doesn’t it makes me sound so smart? Your analogy isn’t one and your points make no sense. You’re shoe horning a white plight angle into this convo for no reason. You’re downvoting me for challenging you to better represent your point of view.
The fact that you’re bringing it up at all indicates that you haven’t been paying enough attention to the problems and conversations about racism.
Even your language “not the biggest problem” does not mean “not a problem” it literally means second place or lower. Which is a lot of wiggle room for validating white rights ideologues.
I don’t really understand your point. Portmanteaus and coining new words are useful in conveying complex concepts, though. If you wanted to have a conversation about parentification would you rather have one word to encompass that or have to say “the effect of having to be a care giver to your caregivers during your formative years” every time you need to reference that concept in the discussion.
What makes that a mutilation instead of more efficient?
The racism thing is confusing because racism encompasses both forms but there are specific descriptors for unique expressions of the same thing. Just like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t necessarily a square. That’s not really redefining, systemic racism has been racism the whole time, too. We’re just aware enough to have discussions about the specific ways it effects society today.
Edit: redefining “literally” to accommodate people using incorrectly on the other hand was a misstep for the English language, though. So I don’t necessarily disagree, I just think you picked bad examples.
deleted by creator
“-ification” is a suffix about transformation and becoming so the word works fine. Your argument it is just anti-intellectualist opinion. So who cares?
I wouldn’t say I’m an intellectualist, but I am an anti-anti-intellectualist. Doesn’t it makes me sound so smart? Your analogy isn’t one and your points make no sense. You’re shoe horning a white plight angle into this convo for no reason. You’re downvoting me for challenging you to better represent your point of view.
So, good faith’s dried up, get bent asshole.
deleted by creator
The fact that you’re bringing it up at all indicates that you haven’t been paying enough attention to the problems and conversations about racism.
Even your language “not the biggest problem” does not mean “not a problem” it literally means second place or lower. Which is a lot of wiggle room for validating white rights ideologues.
deleted by creator
lol cool, k bye
deleted by creator