I replied to your post and it was deleted or removed by glitch or something — hillsofgold

Spam filter false positive. Now released.

You'll be eating your words when he gets Denmark to sell Greenland to the US and turns it into the most successful golfing haven on the planet (he's way ahead on the global warming curve).

Shallow's an apt term. Thankfully, the thread is taking a more interesting direction now. It is a bit rough to put things as I did. A hammer for a nail. So yes, it's right to emphasize the layering and development of concept as nominatum (shape and personality) vs the static practicality of use of nominans (linguistic token of exchange). My idea of a concept qua nominatum would be a virtual form that straddles cognitive modalities, mercurial but with a stable core and structurally bound. I also like the Deleuzian idea of the concept as friend (although there's also a sense in which we possess concepts and they possess us). And yes, there's the issue of solving problems. Although I might put it that concepts address needs and then build the foundations for more as they build us as thinking things. Anyhow, I need to properly read the last couple of pages here and catch up.

:scream:

That's actually probably all the refutation needed on Terrapin. Unless he can pull something else out, we should probably move on.

What's the grammar of a chair? Roughly, something to sit on, shaped for a human sized butt, mostly mobile but not always, useful for when you've been walking all day. A chair is roughly a response to the problem of human fatigue, our particular physiology, and our ability to create things. The concept of a chair responds to all of this. Was it an individual or a group which decided this? Who cares? An arbitrary, not very relevant question. — StreetlightX

You know what a chair is and can describe it thus because its meaning is grounded in a community of users without which your description would carry no weight. That is the relevant individual vs group distinction here and the one which renders Terrapin's argument absurd. How the concept came about is a different question, I'd say.

With respect to 'correctness', that's also a poorly posed notion. Concepts are neither correct nor incorrect, but rather useful or not useful, felicitious or infelicitious — StreetlightX

Just a quick note with respect to this. I've clarified I'm not posing things that way and specifically mentioned felicity and appropriacy. @Noah Te Stroete made it clear too.

Communication fails when these concepts are used incorrectly. — Noah Te Stroete

There are correct uses of concepts determined by a community of users. — Noah Te Stroete

[his bolding]

To which came this type of thing:

There is no "correct" when it comes to this stuff.
...
I demand that you let me use language however I want to. I don't identify as a conformist to what others want. — Terrapin Station

He does at times show a degree of street smarts and guile though. Like supporting a conspiracy theory involving the Clintons re Epstein's death. Smart move to have the media attacking that bit of nonsense rather than focusing on accusations that Trump was involved with Epstein in child rape and had potentially more than anyone to gain by his death. The media and his political foes are rather crap at taking him on in general though. Rather than just attack him for being anti-PC etc (which he loves) they ought to spend more time attacking him for redistributing money away from the working class to the rich, for ballooning the debt, for hurting farmers with his trade wars, for using his wealth to wangle his way out of Vietnam etc. Focus on his privilege, cowardice, and incompetence, those aspects of his character that might be distasteful to his core supporters and leverage that rather than attack him for just what's made him popular.

You haven't as yet offered much of substance to back up your claims. If you would like to go into some depth we might be able to identify more nuanced sources of disagreement. As it stands what you've presented seems to be nothing more than a trivial strawman re the notion of correctness. Re language usage, it's understood that there's flexibility in terms of what's considered correct. The scope of the notion is defined by the degree of consensus regarding that to which it is applied and is informed by both empirical evidence regarding use as well as the views of recognized authorities (while being set in the context of the appropriate level of language community). That's the way things work. If you want to question the validity of that, fine, but there's no point questioning it on the basis of presuming that when we refer to 'correct' usage we are establishing an absolute binary of correct/incorrect with precise expressible boundaries. One grain is certainly not a heap and a million grains are. But that there is a question over whether a heap may apply to x number of grains does not mean we cannot correctly identify heaps. Or, even more jarring, that to claim we can entails a logical fallacy.

Cheers I'll take a look at a sample anyhow or I may be able to get the pdf somewhere.

No! :lol:

Can you give us a bit more to chew on? A link even. It's got to be more interesting than what's come before.

It's hard to even know what your claim is now. A standard of correctness does not have to be an absolute. It's a yard-stick. Felicity and appropriacy are other terms used in similar contexts. And if as per @S this all boils down to some pedantic notion regarding the term "correct", it really has been a waste of time. Although either way your argumentum ad populum claim is senseless and you ought to drop it and rephrase your objection in a more coherent manner.

Instead of worrying about whether an interpretation is correct or not, why not worry about things like whether communication with someone is coherent, consistent, etc.? — Terrapin Station

Yes, but in order to be coherent/consistent etc there are certain presumptions to be made including that there is a standard of correctness that we can both agree on with regards to the meaning of words. Again, I'm all for problematising but this idea that the notion of correct usage inheres a logical fallacy doesn't stand up to scrutiny and just impedes communication. You need something more sophisticated than that.

You seem unusually consumed with being right, correct, etc.

I could suggest a therapist. — Terrapin Station

As long as it's not whoever you're using. :lol:

I wish you'd answer my questions...

By that I'm not incorrect in assuming you mean I am obviously right and you are obviously wrong?

There aren't correct/incorrect interpretations. — Terrapin Station

I interpret that to mean "there are correct/incorrect interpretations". Good to be in agreement.

It should be pretty obvious that I don't think it makes communication impossible, right? — Terrapin Station

I wouldn't be incorrect in interpreting this to mean that you think it makes communication impossible?

(And I'm all for problematising stuff, but in order to do so you need theory, and theory whose sophistication and strength is in proportion to the problematic nature of the claim, but all we've got here is the continued assertion of prima facie self-refutations and absurdities.)

Here's another amusing pickle Terrapin is in. He says:

if you say, "Most people use 'chair' to refer to bicycles," you are incorrect . — Terrapin Station

But again, by his own logic, you are not incorrect in using 'use' to mean 'don't use' (and it would be fallacious to claim otherwise) and he cannot know that that is not the usage you are employing, so his own statement above is incorrect. So what it means in practice to have no notion of correct usage is that you cannot make any claim about what anyone says without clarifying their meaning, and then clarifying the clarification, and so on ad infinitum. The upshot of no usage being correct is the impossibility of communication.

Then for once you're right. — Terrapin Station

Funny that by your own logic I wouldn't be incorrect in interpreting you as saying that I'm always right. (And it would be an argumentum ad populum to claim otherwise :party: ).

@thewonder @Bitter Crank

Generic 'he' was and is grammatically correct. The issue is one of style and appropriacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Generic_he

Tom Cruise has never dealt with a vicious dictator — NOS4A2

That's worrying as I tend to follow Tom's political advice to the letter. So maybe Kim's apology for continuing missile tests is genuine rather than a calculated strategy and Donald is really in control. Well, that's a relief. :up:

Cross posted.

That's a good test if your goal is conformism. — Terrapin Station

I get the feeling you're fetishizing non-conformism to the extent its impairing your ability to accept facts so basic coherent comprehension is dependent on them. It's OK to conform sometimes, you know. It helps keep things sensible. You don't get brownie points just for holding a minority opinion.

I've explained many times that you're wrong about this. I doubt you'll stop claiming things that are wrong, however. — Terrapin Station

But I agreed with everything you said. I just used words in a non-consensus way so that they meant their opposites. (See, I did it again).

True, I admit Tom Cruise was the one who taught me that you should not let personal flattery by vicious dictators affect your foreign policy positions towards them.

It's been explained to you multiple times that correct usage is determined by consensus for certain facts, such as social facts, and for definitions of words etc. You can continue to deny that, but your denial is empty as language will continue to function that way and we will continue to make judgements that way.

(And if there is any utility at all in looking at things your way, please let me know as I don't see it.)

No, we can say it is a fact that he is President. A social fact to be precise, which comes into being through consensus. And calling that an argumentum ad populum is silly, frankly, and you should know better.

I have no idea what that really means or why you think it — S

I may have made the original post a bit concise. And it's based on an idea that could probably do with more explication. But it is essentially all in there.

1) New pronouns won't take off, so even if I had any political or aesthetic objections to them, it wouldn't matter in the bigger picture.

2) I generally accede to polite requests that cost me nothing. And would regardless of my propensity to be altruistic because of the good will fostered. It's trading a negligible cost for a non-negligible benefit.

So, I don't feel any pressure in the above case. I feel like I'm winning. And even where a demand is made then I'd consider the presenting of the obligation to negate itself by its presentation as such and so again feel no pressure.

Not really. I just value folks gettin' along.

Boring.

Organs Without Bodies: Deleuze and Consequences — StreetlightX

Hadn't heard of that one. Any good?

I think @Terrapin Station's idea is cute. Now I get to say it's just an argumentum ad populum to claim that Donald Trump is president of the US. Like, that's just conformity, dude.

@S

(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.) — Baden

Why wouldn't the person demanding that I adopt a terminology which I find silly, at the cost of seeing me as personally affronting them, be the one who is being difficult? — S

Either party can be the one being difficult. Have a look at my next post and see what you think

I think it should function as the converse of a necessary apology that's accepted with the condition of necessity being negated.

As in:
A: "I really must apologize about X" (Obligation presumed)
B: "Oh, there's no need to apologize" (Obligation negated)(But with the unspoken necessary condition of negation here being the original assumption of obligation in the apology itself)

So, the converse is that someone asks you as a favour to refer to them by their preferred pronoun presuming no obligation. Then, on the basis of that lack of presumption, you accept it as an obligation. In other words the obligatory etiquette arises out of its voluntary negation by its beneficiary.

As in:
A: "I'd really appreciate it if you would refer to me as "they" rather than "he or she". You don't have, to of course, but I do prefer it." (Obligation negated)
B: "Sure, of course." (Obligation presumed)(On the unspoken necessary condition of the original negation of obligation).

This is how etiquette works. Give and take in a space created by charity and good-will. There is nothing to be proud of in a vulgar rejection of this aspect of human relations.

(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.)

Examples of the Problems:

Each one of us loves his mother.
The writer must carefully proofread what he writes.
All men are created equal.
Let’s ask each of the poets what he thinks is his best work.
Let everyone ask himself to consider the problem of the lack of the epicene pronoun.
Man, being a mortal, breast feeds his young.
... — PoeticUniverse

Examples of available solutions:

People love their mothers.
Writers must carefully proofread their writing.
All people are created equal.
Let's ask the poets to name each of their best works.
Let's all ask ourselves to consider...
Being mortal, we breastfeed our young / Humans breastfeed their young.

And so on.

All of which pay heed to grammar and gender neutrality. Where the two must conflict for stylistic reasons, it's generally acceptable (and often desirable) to bend the grammar rules, especially concerning verb-subject agreement.

But they won’t have a chance of getting used if they don’t sound right. — PoeticUniverse

They probably won't have a chance, period. The difficulty with messing with the pronouns is that they're a closed word class and very resistant to change. So, it's not something that can really be subject to decree. Having said that, I don't get the self-righteous refusal not to respect—within reason—others choices about how they want to be addressed. Seems like an unnecessary way to make enemies.

Dear Donny,

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Your hair is silky soft
and your skin a pretty hue,
Please can I have lotsa nukes
an' I'll write more poems to you,

Hugs and kisses,

Kimmy :heart: :heart: