Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Zo saw something…and said something.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wow, what a mess.
A primary tenet of conservatism is skepticism towards change, so yes, those who opposed the ending slavery or women’s suffrage are considered conservative.
No, it’s not a liberal interpretation of the constitution that allowed slavery, but intrinsic to the compromise that made the constitution possible. Conservative Democrats wanted to preserve their peculiar institution, while Radical Republicans wanted to change the constitution to end slavery.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 12:11…are considered conservative.
By whom?
That’s the trouble with passive statements — they are inevitably true. And don’t actually say much of anything at all.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 12:19mkfreeberg: By whom?
By the dictionary, which is determined by general usage.
conservatism, belief in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 12:30Then it’s settled. Zo must be a racist.
By the way, if y’all watched all the videos, he specifies exactly what it is conservatives are trying to conserve, and how liberals are being liberal. Surprise surprise, it doesn’t have to do with “liberating” anybody or anything at all…and interestingly enough, our current experiences agree with Zo’s comments.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 13:52mkfreeberg: Zo must be a racist.
No. Our point was that Zo was wrong.
mkfreeberg: By the way, if y’all watched all the videos,
None of that can salvage a claim that the Constitution didn’t enable slavery. It did. That was why there was a 13th Amendment, to take the issue out of the hands of the states, and make the federal government the guarantor, with Congress given the power to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the provision ending slavery.
mkfreeberg: he specifies exactly what it is conservatives are trying to conserve
Except that nobody outside the right wing echo chamber refers to slaveowners in the antebellum South as liberal. They were the conservative faction, trying to preserve the existing institution. It was the abolitionist Republicans who were the liberals trying to change the system.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 15:28Except that nobody outside the right wing echo chamber refers to slaveowners in the antebellum South as liberal. They were the conservative faction, trying to preserve the existing institution.
They used exactly the same argument then about slavery, that today’s “liberals” use about abortion — almost word for word.
In both cases, the arguments goes, YES there are human rights that might have applied here, if the class being discussed did indeed possess human attributes. But, the pro-choicers say the babies are just clumps of tissue, just as the antebellum slaveowners said the slaves were mere property.
It’s exactly the same argument.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 15:49mkfreeberg: But, the pro-choicers say the babies are just clumps of tissue
Most pro-choicers think embryos are potential human beings. You do realize that many women who are pro-choice still want to have and love children?
mkfreeberg: They used exactly the same argument then about slavery, that today’s “liberals” use about abortion — almost word for word.
You didn’t respond to the point raised, not that that’s unusual.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 16:04You didn’t respond to the point raised, not that that’s unusual.
There’s a definition of “liberal” that works better than what is found in the dictionary — which seems to be badly in need of an update. That responds to the point. Zo explained in great detail how the application of “liberal” to the slaveowners and their sympathizers, works, and works well. That responds to the point.
Y’all say “…nobody outside the right wing echo chamber refers to slaveowners in the antebellum South as liberal.” That isn’t even a point. I don’t know what y’all mean by “right wing echo chamber.” Y’all mean, people who actually read history, and come to their own conclusions about it, nevermind what their liberal college professors might think if they had to work under the tutelage of liberal college professors?
Speaking of responding to points. I recall y’all being asked, directly, repeatedly, what the vintage is for these definitions of liberal and conservative y’;all use. I think most people, outside of any “echo chamber” liberal or conservative, would have to conclude that if they haven’t been revised since about 2005 they must be in need of an update, in America. Certainly, if they come from anywhere before 1980. Definitely, if they were minted before 1968. And inarguably, if they come from before 1917. I just provided a definition for liberal that works consistently, in the United States, since Reconstruction.
Y’all don’t like it because it makes the slaveowners liberals, and illuminates the similarities between them and today’s liberals. Oh well. If the shoe fits.
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2014 @ 05:59mkfreeberg: There’s a definition of “liberal” that works better than what is found in the dictionary — which seems to be badly in need of an update. That responds to the point. Zo explained in great detail how the application of “liberal” to the slaveowners and their sympathizers, works, and works well.
Redefining words doesn’t make an argument. It’s fallacious because it conflates what people normally mean by a term with the special definition.
Zachriel: nobody outside the right wing echo chamber refers to slaveowners in the antebellum South as liberal.
mkfreeberg: That isn’t even a point.
It concerns what people mean by the term “liberal”. And it’s not antebellum slaveholders.
mkfreeberg: I don’t know what y’all mean by “right wing echo chamber.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29
mkfreeberg: Y’all mean, people who actually read history, and come to their own conclusions about it, nevermind what their liberal college professors might think if they had to work under the tutelage of liberal college professors?
Ran across an interesting example lately.
23600: 7
That’s quite the echo chamber!
mkfreeberg: I recall y’all being asked, directly, repeatedly, what the vintage is for these definitions of liberal and conservative y’;all use.
The terms have been in use with regards to politics for generations.
mkfreeberg: I think most people, outside of any “echo chamber” liberal or conservative, would have to conclude that if they haven’t been revised since about 2005 they must be in need of an update, in America.
They’re still used in much the same way they were a generation ago. The political left advocates greater equality, while the political right wants a more hierarchical society. Liberals balance liberty and equality, while conservatives want to slow the rate of change and preserve existing institution. That’s how the terms are used outside the right wing echo chamber.
mkfreeberg: I just provided a definition for liberal that works consistently, in the United States, since Reconstruction.
It has to be consistent with how people actually use the term.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2014 @ 10:00Well, Z, your definition of “people” is “those who think as I do,” so no doubt you feel accurate when you say “consistent with how people actually use the term.” Everyone who agrees with you agrees that “conservative” is merely a synonym for “wrong.” Therefore it’s a simple matter to go back and say, “If it was good it must have been liberals who wanted it.” I’m enjoying watching you even modify “Republican” with “liberal” in order to maintain this unblemished, 100% record of wholesome goodyness for the Great God Liberalism – at least, as long as the Republicans in question are old enough to give you the value-added bonus of claiming that Modern Republicans have fallen far from the True Faith and must be purged to save the Elect from holy wrath.
- nightfly | 04/21/2014 @ 10:35nightfly: Well, Z, your definition of “people” is “those who think as I do,”
Not at all. People have many thoughts and dreams.
nightfly: so no doubt you feel accurate when you say “consistent with how people actually use the term.”
That’s a question for lexicographers.
nightfly: Everyone who agrees with you agrees that “conservative” is merely a synonym for “wrong.”
That is also incorrect. Change for the sake of change can destroy the work of generations. Established institutions are the bulwark against anarchy.
nightfly: Therefore it’s a simple matter to go back and say, “If it was good it must have been liberals who wanted it.”
That is not our view either. Change often has unintended consequences, and liberal exuberance can often lead to chaos.
nightfly: I’m enjoying watching you even modify “Republican” with “liberal” in order to maintain this unblemished, 100% record of wholesome goodyness for the Great God Liberalism – at least, as long as the Republicans in question are old enough to give you the value-added bonus of claiming that Modern Republicans have fallen far from the True Faith and must be purged to save the Elect from holy wrath.
That’s a tough one to parse, but there were many liberal Republicans until recent history, just as there were many conservative Democrats until recent history. The strict ideological divide is a rather new phenomena.
- Zachriel | 04/21/2014 @ 11:11That’s quite the echo chamber!
A much better example would have been Sarah Palin being “quoted” as saying “I can see Russia from my house!” The ice-cap-five-years “misquote,” like the “invented the Internet” misquote, has the virtue of accurately reflecting the syllables that found their way out of Mr. Gore’s throat…over which, reasonable people must presume, he must be exercising some control, and therefore some responsibility? Maybe, since Al Gore is now oh-for-two, that’s too much to expect…
Y’all’s echo-chamber-example sucks butt, sorry, I didn’t make it that way. And when y’all are clinging to definitions of words that are known to everyone using them, to have changed in meaning over the past few years and decades, and the definitions are static through the generations…well, that’s more illustrative of existing inside an echo chamber, than outside of one.
How about we agree on this. What y’all are advancing as definitions for these words, do not represent “what people normally mean by [the] term[s],” but rather, “what liberals mean by the terms.” That’s the first step to defining things accurately: Separating different things from each other. We have what liberals wish to present, then we have reality.
To be clear, we’re after the real definitions here, not the liberal ones.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2014 @ 05:57mkfreeberg: A much better example would have been Sarah Palin being “quoted” as saying “I can see Russia from my house!”
No, it wouldn’t be a good example. The first three Google listings for the exact quote “I can see Russia from my house!” are to Snopes and the CSMonitor with the correct attribution, a video of Tina Fey on SNL. There are a total of 328 thousand such listings, most clearly noting it as a joke or using it in a joking manner.
mkfreeberg: The ice-cap-five-years “misquote,” like the “invented the Internet” misquote, has the virtue of accurately reflecting the syllables that found their way out of Mr. Gore’s throat
No, Gore didn’t say he invented the Internet.
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt
mkfreeberg: How about we agree on this. What y’all are advancing as definitions for these words, do not represent “what people normally mean by [the] term[s],” but rather, “what liberals mean by the terms.”
We can’t agree to something that isn’t accurate. The terms liberal and conservative, left and right, have meanings in modern English contrary to your usage above. You will see the standard terminology used consistently, except in propaganda and polemics. We’ve provided scholarly sources, media sources, lexicographic sources.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 07:28@Morgan and Nightfly,
I think this might be an ideal time to test out the new trollbusting hotness. It is clear that the Cuttlefish will not acknowledge that usages can change, at least on any subject near and dear to their inky little hearts. Meanwhile, honest folks do it with ease — a quick browse through Wikipedia can net you “scholarly sources, media sources, lexicographic sources” for the phlogiston theory of combustion, spontaneous generation, canals on Mars…
I suggest stipulating that, for purposes of this particular thread, “liberal” means X and “conservative” means Y. Agree with it or quit commenting. Further outbursts of squid ink will be ignored.
They’ll try their usual poo-flinging, of course. I bet they’ll even try to respond to me, even though they know full well what happens when they do that. But stick to your guns. Give ’em a choice — you can stay within the parameters of the discussion as defined, or you can fuck right off.
That’s what I call a win-win.
- Severian | 04/22/2014 @ 09:04Severian: usages can change
Of course they can. They study is called etymology. However, the usage being suggested is not consistent with how most people use the terms. Furthermore, simply redefining “liberal” to mean bad, doesn’t represent an argument that liberals are bad.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 09:28Not only is Zo using the terms inconsistent with normal usage, he’s making false historical claims. For instance, he said it was a liberal interpretation of the Constitution that allowed slavery, however, it was an explicit compromise between the states.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 09:31Severian: I suggest stipulating that, for purposes of this particular thread, “liberal” means X and “conservative” means Y.
There’s nothing wrong with stipulating definitions, but you then have to be careful not to conflate those definitions with the standard definitions. That’s why most specialties use jargon.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 09:39Huh. I made it crystal clear to y’all that you’re not permitted to address me, and that any attempt to do so will be met with a link to y’all failing Debate 101 forever.
And yet y’all keep doing it, which means you’re either learning-impaired or masochistic (or, of course, both).
It’s time to get a new hobby, y’all. I’m sure your school’s Anime and Manga Club would be happy to have you.
- Severian | 04/22/2014 @ 09:48Whoa, harsh. What did the Anime and Manga Club ever do to you, Sev?
- nightfly | 04/22/2014 @ 09:54Severian: Huh. I made it crystal clear to y’all that you’re not permitted to address me
Don’t worry. Most of your comments are automatically consigned to the dustbin by our DeSnark® desnarkification field suppressor. On the other hand, when you do post on-topic, we may very well respond. In this case, you directly quoted our previous comment.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 09:54Oooh, they made a funny!! Look at the funny they made!!!!
They still fail Debate 101 forever, though.
- Severian | 04/22/2014 @ 09:59However, the usage being suggested is not consistent with how most people use the terms.
What is the number of persons measured to be using the terms in the way suggested, and what is the number of persons measured to not be using the terms in the way suggested?
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2014 @ 19:09mkfreeberg: What is the number of persons measured to be using the terms in the way suggested, and what is the number of persons measured to not be using the terms in the way suggested?
See Atkins & Rundell, The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography, Oxford University Press 2008.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 05:21Z: However, the usage being suggested is not consistent with how most people use the terms.
M: What is the number of persons measured to be using the terms in the way suggested, and what is the number of persons measured to not be using the terms in the way suggested?
Z: See Atkins & Rundell, The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography, Oxford University Press 2008.
Maybe I will and maybe I won’t. But Atkins and Rundell are not participating in this thread; y’all are; y’all made a claim. I wish to see the context of this word “most.”
Also, it wouldn’t hurt to test y’all’s comprehension of y’all’s citations, since that has been found wanting in the past. Y’all’s argument rests — entirely — on this statement of how “most people” define liberalism, at least, this part of y’all’s argument does.
So what are those numbers?
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 05:31mkfreeberg: I wish to see the context of this word “most.”
Practical lexicographers use multiple sources for determining word meanings, including printed texts such as books, newspapers, magazines, and various electronic media, from television to the Internet. As with any scholarly field, they have peer reviewed journals, and are constantly updating their findings based on new data and new methodologies.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 06:01@Morgan,
I think you have your first experimental result here, amigo. Add this one to The List: The numbers / methods swap.
You asked for numbers. They replied with a discourse on methodology. As if you’d asked “How many touchdowns did Dan Marino throw in 1988?” and they came back with “a touchdown is determined by the nose of the football breaking the plane, i.e. an imaginary space extending infinitely upwards from the front edge of the white end zone stripe. A touchdown is worth six points and is immediately followed by a ‘try’ of one or two points, depending…” See Goodell, The Official NFL Rulebook, 2014 ed.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 06:58Severian: As if you’d asked “How many touchdowns did Dan Marino throw in 1988?”
Twenty-eight. Of course, we didn’t count them, but relied upon a tertiary source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Marino
Severian: You asked for numbers.
His latest question was “I wish to see the context of this word ‘most.'” We provided that context. We deferred to lexicographers for their conclusions. Did you have specific data showing the lexicographers are wrong?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 07:17His latest question was “I wish to see the context of this word ‘most.’”
Lie. His very last question was So what are those numbers?
Get back in your shame closet until you learn to read.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 07:22S: You asked for numbers.
Z: His latest question was “I wish to see the context of this word ‘most.’” We provided that context. We deferred to lexicographers for their conclusions. Did you have specific data showing the lexicographers are wrong?
++blink++
Just wow.
So okay, then…no numbers. “Most” was, to put it charitably, a fabrication.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 17:20mkfreeberg: So okay, then…no numbers. “Most” was, to put it charitably, a fabrication.
Not at all. It’s the consensus of experts in the field, not only in practical lexicography, but political science as well. We provided their methodologies above, but really, just reading a newspaper would probably be sufficient for most people. The terms left and right, liberal and conservative, have fairly consistent meanings (outside the right wing echo chamber).
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 17:24Not at all. It’s the consensus of experts in the field, not only in practical lexicography, but political science as well. We provided their methodologies above, but really, just reading a newspaper would probably be sufficient for most people. The terms left and right, liberal and conservative, have fairly consistent meanings (outside the right wing echo chamber).
Still no numbers. “Most” was, to put it charitably, a fabrication.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 17:47Boy, the Cuttlers are just in love with credentials, aren’t they? “It’s common usage!” How common? “Well, here’s some experts who say so.” Seriously, on every topic, whenever we get to something that requires a working definition based on what really happens, what is actually observed, the appeal is immediately to some expert – lexicographers, dictionaries, famous people, approved sources, authorities… never our own eyes and ears and brains.
We are supposed to be overawed by this grand wisdom, carven upon the very living rock and brought down to us from on high, and if our own lived experience is different, well then… life itself is wrong.
I’d whistle this one down, too, except that it’s not even the correct sport – like watching a bowler suddenly break out a basketball and start dribbling it down the alley… or else like watching him take his turn by standing up, expounding upon the history of ninepins and the tech specs of mechanical pin setters, and then sitting back down and expecting to be awarded a strike.
- nightfly | 04/23/2014 @ 18:49“Egregious question evasion” is a technical foul in basketball, Nightfly. I read it in a dictionary, so it must be true.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 19:11mkfreeberg: Still no numbers. “Most” was, to put it charitably, a fabrication.
most, greatest in amount or degree. “Most” is often a qualitative term.
You could just read a newspaper. Fascism is almost always associated with right wing nationalist groups (outside of right wing American polemics, of course).
Here’s a typical example from the Wall Street Journal:
The Many Faces of Belgian Fascism … For many years, the party’s chief selling point was its call to forcibly deport immigrants who failed to assimilate. It also made plain its sympathies with other far-right wing European parties, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front in France.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:13nightfly: We are supposed to be overawed by this grand wisdom, carven upon the very living rock and brought down to us from on high, and if our own lived experience is different, well then… life itself is wrong.
Expert opinion is a convincing argument unless you have something more than your personal experience. In any case, if you leave the right wing echo chamber for a while, and either read a few newspapers, or a few books on the subject, you will see the conventional use of these political terms is ubiquitous.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:16We need a ruling here, Nightfly. Obviously they’re attempting to re-litigating a conclusion yet again — a five minute major– but at least they didn’t cut-n-paste their vintage 2005 “valid appeal from authority” link that they cribbed, uncredited, from some Canadian Holocaust site. Cut it down to two minutes? Or throw ’em out?
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 19:24You could just read a newspaper.
It seems — to me, a named person — that y’all aren’t willing to back up y’all’s claim, and that y’all are now abandoning it. Still no numbers.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 19:32mkfreeberg: It seems — to me, a named person — that y’all aren’t willing to back up y’all’s claim, and that y’all are now abandoning it. Still no numbers.
We did support our claim. We provided citations to practical lexicography and to political scientists, and provided a typical example. We can’t make you read them.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:38I guess you’ve got another one to add to the Big Book O’ Trolling, Morgan. So far your experiment is a resounding success. I think this one falls under The Debate is Over Syndrome.
The support requested was numbers. It’s the very last line of a very short block of text. There are only four possibilites here:
1) Y’all didn’t see it — which makes you lazy;
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 19:552) Y’all did see it, but didn’t understand it — which makes you stupid;
3) Y’all did see it, did understand it, and chose to stay silent, sheepishly hoping your failure to answer would be forgotten — which makes you dishonest;
or
4) Some combination of the above.
We could just add it to the file so we understand how to talk to The Zachriel. When they say “most,” they don’t mean “greatest in amount or degree,” nevermind that that’s the definition they’re applying to the word. “Greatest” strongly implies, if it doesn’t state outright, that some process of comparison was done. Which would have to mean there are at least two quantities somewhere — that they cannot, or will not, provide.
And as usual, that’s somehow someone else’s problem.
But “most” doesn’t mean “most” when you’re talking to them. So noted.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 04:57Severian: The support requested was numbers.
Sorry, but we don’t have numbers. We supported with citations to practical lexicography and to political scientists, and provided a typical example. We can’t make you read them.
Oxford dictionary
fascism, (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian
None of this is controversial (outside the right wing echo chamber, of course).
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 04:57None of this is controversial (outside the right wing echo chamber, of course).
It’s looking more and more like y’all are the ones living inside a left-wing echo chamber. Y’all’s claim was not that “none of this is controversial,” it had to do with “how most people use the terms.” Y’all seem to be backing off this claim now, in fact, admitting it was a fabrication in the first place, with “Sorry, but we don’t have numbers.”
I guess, since y’all will never take responsibility for anything — y’all’s fascination with majority-opinion seems to be an offshoot of that — the problem is mine. I heard “most” and I just naturally assumed, there was a set and a subset, the count of the subset was greater than 50% of the count of the larger set. Without that happening, the word “most” doesn’t apply.
Even according to y’all’s own definition. But it’s okay, I’ve added it to the list of things about which y’all are not to be taken seriously, so we’re all good now.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 05:13mkfreeberg: Y’all’s claim was not that “none of this is controversial,” it had to do with “how most people use the terms.”
It’s not controversial outside the right wing echo chamber.
mkfreeberg: I heard “most” and I just naturally assumed, there was a set and a subset, the count of the subset was greater than 50% of the count of the larger set.
Heh. You are simply amazing! That’s why we frequent your blog.
Anyway, practical lexicographers collect evidence from a variety of sources in order to determine word usage. It’s not an exact quantitative measure, but a preponderance of evidence. We’ve provided you citations to the general methodology, dictionary definitions, scholarly references, and basic examples. You might even take a class on practical lexicography. You can’t make sense of anything outside the right wing echo chamber using your definitions.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service: “This note examines the right-wing or neo-Nazi/neofascist organizations currently active in Italy, West Germany, and France, with attention to their methods, aims, and prospects… Right-wing terrorism seems to be interested in establishing a form of government similar to the fascist regimes of Italy, Germany, and Japan before and during World War II”
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 06:11https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=89533
Sorry, but we don’t have numbers
Then why didn’t you just say so? Why duck and dodge and obfuscate?
See, this is one of the many, many, many reasons everyone here thinks y’all are pathetic hacks. Contemplate that on the Tree of Woe.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 06:58Severian: Then why didn’t you just say so?
We did. Indeed, you just quoted our words. We supported our claim with citations to practical lexicography, dictionaries, political scientists, and provided examples.
Oxford dictionary
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 07:05fascism, (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian
Going to the tape….
– mkfreeberg | 04/22/2014 @ 19:09 What is the number of persons measured to be using the terms in the way suggested, and what is the number of persons measured to not be using the terms in the way suggested?
– Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 05:21 See Atkins & Rundell, The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography, Oxford University Press 2008. [No numbers. Don’t Atkins and Rundell have them somewhere?]
– mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 05:31 So what are those numbers?
– Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 06:01 [dodges the question with some stuff about lexicographers, no numbers]
– Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 06:58 You asked for numbers. They replied with a discourse on methodology.
– Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 07:17 Severian: You asked for numbers.
His latest question was “I wish to see the context of this word ‘most.’” A blatant lie. Still no numbers.
– mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 17:20 So okay, then…no numbers. “Most” was, to put it charitably, a fabrication.
– Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 17:24 Not at all. [some crap about “consensus of experts.” Still no numbers.]
– mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 17:47 Still no numbers. “Most” was, to put it charitably, a fabrication.
– Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:13 mkfreeberg: Still no numbers. “Most” was, to put it charitably, a fabrication.
most, greatest in amount or degree. “Most” is often a qualitative term. [Some crap about consensus, some crap y’all claim to have pulled from the Wall Street Journal. Still no numbers]
– mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 19:32 It seems — to me, a named person — that y’all aren’t willing to back up y’all’s claim, and that y’all are now abandoning it. Still no numbers.
– Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:38 We did support our claim. [STILL no numbers]
– Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 19:55 The support requested was numbers.
– mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 04:57 But “most” doesn’t mean “most” when you’re talking to them. So noted.
– Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 04:57 Sorry, but we don’t have numbers.
FINALLY an admission that you don’t have numbers. After… let’s see here… eight prompts to provide them. The previous seven times, y’all tried to pretend that “some crap about lexicography” is functionally equivalent to “numbers.” At any point in there, y’all could’ve simply said you don’t have them. (What, you couldn’t find them in Atkins and Rundell 2008? Don’t the professional expert lexicographers you’re insisting we read provide them either?)
But you didn’t. Seven times.
Shame closet.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 07:57Severian: 3) Y’all did see it, did understand it, and chose to stay silent, sheepishly hoping your failure to answer would be forgotten
Heheheh. You’ve noticed that too.
- Captain Midnight | 04/24/2014 @ 08:11Yeah. Didn’t mean to steal it without attribution. 🙂
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 08:19Severian: Yeah. Didn’t mean to steal it without attribution.
Steal away. Sincerest form of flattery and all that.
- Captain Midnight | 04/24/2014 @ 09:25Thanks!
I have to admit, now I’m actually kinda curious about this “numbers” business. I mean, they must exist, right? Somebody at some point has to count actual usages, or else how could meanings change over time? So either these Atkins and Rundell guys have the numbers or they don’t. If they do, just look ’em up and post ’em. If they don’t, just toddle off and look ’em up in a book that does. That’s how it works in academia — follow the footnotes far enough, and eventually you arrive at the original data.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 09:48Sev – sadly, I can’t break out the whistle for an infraction I didn’t catch at the time, though watching the review you just gave is a wonderful training tool. Even refs have to practice, practice, practice.
The toughest thing is distinguishing between merely being bad at debate and all the actual fallacies, distortions, and actual chicanery. Like any physical sport, simple suckitude in debate carries its own penalty in points surrendered, outs made, etc. And like any physical sport, those who really struggle to keep up are usually tempted to commit heaps of fouls in order to try to keep up with the skilled.
In this case this debate looks finished off, and I’m loath to follow anyone into the locker room to issue penalties after the final buzzer. Let them take their showers in shame and peace.
- nightfly | 04/24/2014 @ 10:48Nightfly,
you’re right.. Bad sportsmanship on my part….
….or it would be, if they hadn’t tried to respond to me on this topic in a different thread. My current theory is that they’re stupid / bad at debate / dishonest at 2:1:1.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 11:37mkfreeberg: What is the number of persons measured to be using the terms in the way suggested, and what is the number of persons measured to not be using the terms in the way suggested?
Lexicology is not strictly a numerical field, though scholars undoubtedly collect and count data from a number of sources. Journals rarely publish raw data. If you are actually interested in the raw data, you might be able to contact researchers directly. Our comments are based on expert opinion in practical lexicography and political science. We also provided examples.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 11:48Add another one to The List, Morgan — it takes eight prompts and getting busted on a bald-faced lie before they’ll pony up a straight answer, and then they’ll go right back to parroting their previous talking point.
I still question the value of going through all this rigamarole, but if you’re dead set on compiling some kind of Uniform Retard Debate Code, there you go.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 11:54“….or it would be, if they hadn’t tried to respond to me on this topic in a different thread.”
Not only that, but a thread where they were already DQ’d. Nor do I blame you… I said I wouldn’t follow them into the locker room, but it’s far different when they refuse to go to their lockers and instead follow you out to the parking lot to keep arguing.
(And yes, I have had a player do that. He not only followed me out, but pulled up behind me at the traffic light down the block from the rink, LEFT HIS CAR and walked up to my window to keep pleading his case. He was and remains a friend and I knew he was just being his loopy, harmless self, but it was waaaaaaay over the top. And if it wasn’t a buddy of mine I probably would have slugged him.)
- nightfly | 04/24/2014 @ 12:31mkfreeberg: What is the number of persons measured to be using the terms in the way suggested, and what is the number of persons measured to not be using the terms in the way suggested?
Practical lexicographers collect data from many sources, and determine how most people use words. In any case, simply redefining words to suit an ideological position is not an argument. We’ve explained this many times in many different ways. The definitions you insist upon are inconsistent with how the vast majority of people use the terms, and renders any discussion incoherent. Try to parse this, for instance:
National Criminal Justice Reference Service: “This note examines the right-wing or neo-Nazi/neofascist organizations currently active in Italy, West Germany, and France, with attention to their methods, aims, and prospects… Right-wing terrorism seems to be interested in establishing a form of government similar to the fascist regimes of Italy, Germany, and Japan before and during World War II”
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 12:38https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=89533
Nightfly,
goodness gracious! I guess it isn’t just politics that gives people a case of the stupids. Though for a certain brand of politics, at least, stupid seems to be a feature not a bug….
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 13:40