FYI, many modern idioms are bullshit shadows of their original phrasing, (eg. “Blood is thicker…”, “Great minds…”, “Birds of a feather…”, etc.) and arguing that they’re fine as-is smacks more of anti-intellectualism (if not outright laziness) than anything meaningful. 🙇🏼♂️
at least for blood is thicker the “full version” is actually most likely newer than the one you’re complaining about. it’s almost as though people use language to say what they want to say. nothing anti-intellectual about that
But that’s how language works. Things mean what the majority of people say they mean. Otherwise, everyone would still be using the n word because it wouldn’t have a negative meaning. It’s about communication, not absolute logic.
Just because the horizon exists doesn’t mean every path toward it is equal in value. Logical fallacy aside, you seem to agree that improvement as a species is a worthy goal, and maybe even a personal obligation to promote such.
Language works a lot of ways. Don’t let laziness and cognitive ambivalence hold the reins of linguistic morphology.
in what way is calling water wet laziness or cognitive ambivalence? it’s not like wetness is something that just exists in the world prior to our construction of it
Nope I don’t agree. Language has meaning to people, and has no obligation to past meanings or logic. If it did then we wouldn’t have been able to reclaim the use of the word gay which has changed meanings multiple times just in my lifetime.
I mean, yeah, but it’s the idiom for that and is why I put it in quotes. Not all idioms make logical sense.
The fact remains.
FYI, many modern idioms are bullshit shadows of their original phrasing, (eg. “Blood is thicker…”, “Great minds…”, “Birds of a feather…”, etc.) and arguing that they’re fine as-is smacks more of anti-intellectualism (if not outright laziness) than anything meaningful. 🙇🏼♂️
at least for blood is thicker the “full version” is actually most likely newer than the one you’re complaining about. it’s almost as though people use language to say what they want to say. nothing anti-intellectual about that
But that’s how language works. Things mean what the majority of people say they mean. Otherwise, everyone would still be using the n word because it wouldn’t have a negative meaning. It’s about communication, not absolute logic.
Just because the horizon exists doesn’t mean every path toward it is equal in value. Logical fallacy aside, you seem to agree that improvement as a species is a worthy goal, and maybe even a personal obligation to promote such.
Language works a lot of ways. Don’t let laziness and cognitive ambivalence hold the reins of linguistic morphology.
in what way is calling water wet laziness or cognitive ambivalence? it’s not like wetness is something that just exists in the world prior to our construction of it
I’m sorry, did you just imply that wetness depends on observation to exist?
Nope I don’t agree. Language has meaning to people, and has no obligation to past meanings or logic. If it did then we wouldn’t have been able to reclaim the use of the word gay which has changed meanings multiple times just in my lifetime.
Oh, please, say more. 😶