I read through a couple of your banned comments in WomensStuff. You really seem to have “Lust” for calling everything “Lust” (like a woman holding a cup of coffee has a “Lust” for/addiction to coffee). Do you not see that this type of hyper-reductionist thinking irks people?
To answer your question, yes and no. I disagree it’s hyper-reductionist. I see it as just textbook definition. Yes in that I am beginning to realize that people are irked when I use dictionary definitions, but i have yet to learn which words are sensitive or buzzwords. Apparently, I’ve had one person describe my whole style of writing as problematic, so it may go beyond mere buzzwords. I’ll put “lust” in a spreadsheet and label it as a buzzword, or politically incorrect, or undiplomatic, or another synonym of the same thing.
I disagree it’s hyper-reductionist. I see it as just textbook definition.
But you’re not focusing on the most common textbook definition (and the one that’s used colloquially), you’re focusing on a secondary definition. For example, Merriam Webster lists these definitions:
usually intense or unbridled sexual desire
an intense longing
(obsolete) pleasure, delight
You’re using the second definition while completely ignoring the first one. But how can people reading your comments know that you mean the less common definition? They can’t - they’ll assume at best that you mean both, at worst that you only mean the first.
And that’s ignoring that deriving a “lust for coffee” from a person holding a coffee cup is, by textbook definition, hyper-reductionist.
Yes in that I am beginning to realize that people are irked when I use dictionary definitions, but i have yet to learn which words are sensitive or buzzwords.
Again, it’s not about “dictionary definitions”, it’s about using secondary definitions of words which necessarily carry the connotation of their more common definitions. Even leaving that aside, words with similar definitions usually imply different strengths of their meaning. To give an example, imagine a photo of a university student studying at home while smiling. Which of the following descriptions is more accurate/better/less weird?
Focusing on the last example, a lust for studying would be those academia animes where it is the fetishistic appearance of studying. My conception for a lust for studying would be like school outfits or the words or ideas associated with studying. It may even be the smell of paper books, or the sensual things around the act of studying.
This is different from enjoying studying because that is more like love. I don’t think love and lust are the same thing, which explains that people are attracted and regret it afterward. The enjoyment of studying is more like passion.
I could also be using the wrong words. I don’t know what word to descrbe this odd but common “lookist” phenomena where people are just so infaturated with the mere appearnce of “studying” rather than the actual studying.
I understand that it seems silly on the surface to compare coffee to sex, but the motivation for sex and food are the same pathways in the brain. There are also idioms that compare sex to food and food to sex. People say that a hot woman makes their mouth drop and salivate. Why? Are you going to eat the woman? Oh yeah actually that relates to “eating out” like oral sex … or maybe “eating out” could mean going to a restaurant. Do you see how these are not that arbitrary to connect? An intense sexual desire is very generalizable outside of sex. This is what a fetish is too. A fetish is a sexual desire for non-sexual objects. However, I use lust has it is a bit more generalizable than a fetish which as clinical or medical connotations. Fetish has a more overt sexual connotation than lust … in my mind anyways.
I agree that I could try using the primary or first entry of the definition of words. I never thought they were categorized by popularity like that. I wonder if that’s true. if so, thanks for bringing that to my attention
I understand that it seems silly on the surface to compare coffee to sex, but the motivation for sex and food are the same pathways in the brain.
Oh, so you actually meant the sexual connotation? Then it should be even more clear why you got the reactions that you did: not only were you hyper-reductionist (“She holds a cup of coffee? She must be addicted!”), you also sexualized a woman doing something absolutely normal and non-sexual in a safe space for women. That’s actual incel behavior.
That’s like the least charitable intepretation possible. Clearly motivated reasoning and intellectually bad faith. I had the impression that you were going to play nicely
I read through a couple of your banned comments in WomensStuff. You really seem to have “Lust” for calling everything “Lust” (like a woman holding a cup of coffee has a “Lust” for/addiction to coffee). Do you not see that this type of hyper-reductionist thinking irks people?
To answer your question, yes and no. I disagree it’s hyper-reductionist. I see it as just textbook definition. Yes in that I am beginning to realize that people are irked when I use dictionary definitions, but i have yet to learn which words are sensitive or buzzwords. Apparently, I’ve had one person describe my whole style of writing as problematic, so it may go beyond mere buzzwords. I’ll put “lust” in a spreadsheet and label it as a buzzword, or politically incorrect, or undiplomatic, or another synonym of the same thing.
But you’re not focusing on the most common textbook definition (and the one that’s used colloquially), you’re focusing on a secondary definition. For example, Merriam Webster lists these definitions:
You’re using the second definition while completely ignoring the first one. But how can people reading your comments know that you mean the less common definition? They can’t - they’ll assume at best that you mean both, at worst that you only mean the first.
And that’s ignoring that deriving a “lust for coffee” from a person holding a coffee cup is, by textbook definition, hyper-reductionist.
Again, it’s not about “dictionary definitions”, it’s about using secondary definitions of words which necessarily carry the connotation of their more common definitions. Even leaving that aside, words with similar definitions usually imply different strengths of their meaning. To give an example, imagine a photo of a university student studying at home while smiling. Which of the following descriptions is more accurate/better/less weird?
Focusing on the last example, a lust for studying would be those academia animes where it is the fetishistic appearance of studying. My conception for a lust for studying would be like school outfits or the words or ideas associated with studying. It may even be the smell of paper books, or the sensual things around the act of studying.
This is different from enjoying studying because that is more like love. I don’t think love and lust are the same thing, which explains that people are attracted and regret it afterward. The enjoyment of studying is more like passion.
I could also be using the wrong words. I don’t know what word to descrbe this odd but common “lookist” phenomena where people are just so infaturated with the mere appearnce of “studying” rather than the actual studying.
I understand that it seems silly on the surface to compare coffee to sex, but the motivation for sex and food are the same pathways in the brain. There are also idioms that compare sex to food and food to sex. People say that a hot woman makes their mouth drop and salivate. Why? Are you going to eat the woman? Oh yeah actually that relates to “eating out” like oral sex … or maybe “eating out” could mean going to a restaurant. Do you see how these are not that arbitrary to connect? An intense sexual desire is very generalizable outside of sex. This is what a fetish is too. A fetish is a sexual desire for non-sexual objects. However, I use lust has it is a bit more generalizable than a fetish which as clinical or medical connotations. Fetish has a more overt sexual connotation than lust … in my mind anyways.
I agree that I could try using the primary or first entry of the definition of words. I never thought they were categorized by popularity like that. I wonder if that’s true. if so, thanks for bringing that to my attention
Oh, so you actually meant the sexual connotation? Then it should be even more clear why you got the reactions that you did: not only were you hyper-reductionist (“She holds a cup of coffee? She must be addicted!”), you also sexualized a woman doing something absolutely normal and non-sexual in a safe space for women. That’s actual incel behavior.
That’s like the least charitable intepretation possible. Clearly motivated reasoning and intellectually bad faith. I had the impression that you were going to play nicely