Quote from: xhomerx10 on September 25, 2020, 10:25:31 PM

Expect the mind of ephemeral Homer when reading my posts.

I misunderstood your emoji, until I just checked the associated alt text. Doh! I apologize for having come off as insulting to you about that issue. I will edit my prior post to note this.

Homer Simpson is a cultural pet peeve of mine, for so very many reasons; but I would not have made that personal to you, if I hadnt thought that you were ridiculing me for not being sufficiently hip and modern!

Interpretation of emojis, icons, and other pictograms: Another modern problem. :-(

Quote from: xhomerx10 on September 25, 2020, 10:25:31 PM

Quote from: nullius on September 25, 2020, 05:53:50 PM

~snip

Edit again: Oh, so was your link specifically to an Urban Dictionary definition of whore intended to suggest that I be a hypocrite for finding timeless old stories relevant to new problems, but not chasing idiotic, oftentimes politically motivated fads in language? If so, that is such an absurd confusion of concepts that I could not guess what you did not say.

~snip

I'm glad you managed to wade through the absurdity of it all and realize the error of my ways.

I object just as vehemently to the political correction of old stories as to the analogous butchery of language.

(A) Good: Apply old fable, allegorical myth, or other literary scenario to new situation.

(B) Bad: Bowdlerize old story because its XYZist. A Newspeak of cultural semiotics, similar to the Newspeak of individual words. Have you seen modernized versions of old stories? Disgusting!

(C) Good: Use old language in the modern day, with such minor adaptations and neologisms as rationally required to communicate about genuinely new things (e.g., aeroplanes, motor-cars, or the Internetwork).

(D) Bad: Orwellian Newspeak. Hardfork^* the language without consensus, so that cultural scammers can hijack control of cultural values by artificially twisting and limiting the words used to express concepts.

You call me a hypocrite for embracing A, but rejecting D. You thus hold that A is like D.

I say that A : C :: B : D.

Mmmm, analogies.

intentional non sequitur : humourous nonsense-analogy :: doughnut : olive branch

* Yes, hardfork. Longstanding linguistic consensus has been changed in an irrational way; and the backwards-incompatible change is enforced by virtual lynch mobs, Kafkaesque persecutions, and socioeconomic terrorism. Observe how people get attacked over using the incorrect pronouns, i.e. the correct pronouns! If you refuse the hardfork changes, then there are zealots who want you universally shunned, fired from your job, and cancelled out of existence. And they are gaining more power by the daynobody pushes back!