Yeah, I know what they mean. Whether or not I understood their meaning was never in question. I have seen tons of people on his forum discuss terminology/grammar/etymology, so why is it wrong or "splitting hairs" now? Also, if a discussion about language is boring or trite to you, your in no way obligated to respond.Avatar Roku said:
My apologies. I have had this argument a lot, but it tended to involve way more people becoming disproportionately offended by the very idea of the word "homophobia", which tends to get on my nerves. That did not happen in this case, however, and I am sorry for assuming.TheVioletBandit said:
If you want to get pedantic, why stop at phobia? Homo is just a slang term. When used in a scientific context it means either "Homo [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo]" the genus of modern humans, or a greek-derived prefix meaning "the same". So I suppose "homonegative" would technically mean something that is not human.TheVioletBandit said:
I accept your apology, and I can see why you would have thought that. Personal, I'm not offended by the term homophobia; as the term doesn't apply to me, and in some cases I actually think it's a good word to describe individuals(those individuals being the ones that are literally afraid of homosexuality, as in they think being around a gay person will make them gay, or some other nonsense), I just think using the term to describe any opposition to homosexuality is a little weird linguistically speaking. Also, I have seen people get offended by the terms pejorative nature which is kind of silly. Although, I guess the people that would be offend by the term already stupidly hate gay people, so maybe we should expect them to be stupidly offended by the term.Avatar Roku said:
In general I consider myself a descriptivist. I'm not overly concerned with the rules of language and will happily agree that natural languages in general are irregular, and because of this could be seen as illogical. I simply made a statement about the usage of the word to which someone replied by posting an oxford definition. I Then replied in in the same manner to support my original claim.James Joseph Emerald said:
But by making a statement about the usage of the word homophobia, aren't you contradicting your own self-professed descriptivism? As a descriptivist, your role is to describe why people say "homophobia", not declare it inaccurate based on your own feelings. That's called "prescription".TheVioletBandit said:
Woodsey said:
Actually, a descriptivists role is..... never mind I wouldn't want to seem "pedantic". And prescription has nothing to do with feelings. fuck, did it again, sorry. Descriptivists have just as much interest in the workings of language and talking about said workings than prescriptivists. Telling a person what I thought the word really meant doesn't mean I am trying to force any rules on anyone, it simply means that I have an interest in language, how it works, and how it is used. Damn it, was that "pedantic"? I guess I can't help myself. Of course I mean that last part jokingly, as I don't believe I have presented myself in ostentatious fashion just because I commented on a word.James Joseph Emerald said:
Well actually it would make me feel slightly uncomfortable, luckily it only happened once and i was pretty drunk so I didn't care at the moment. And the reason for that is simply because i always get uncomfortable when someone who i wouldn't do in a million years (includes chicks) tries anything. And that's because i always want to avoid offending (in this case by rejecting them) anyone and i have that tendency not to be very tactful.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
I posted a definition because you were telling someone they'd used a word wrong, which they hadn't. And yes, well done, I didn't mean "a waste of time" in a completely literal sense.TheVioletBandit said:
