this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
972 points (95.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
7467 readers
4370 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're not necessarily speaking to those people specifically or exclusively. They could be speaking to the broader language community that through their collective action has established that the conventional meaning of the word isn't dehumanizing (because conventionally it isn't) when someone like you comes along & tries to twist their words.
Your "common knowledge" is mistaken: the language community is the authority on their language & there are wrong answers. Someone informing you "lots of people are offended" isn't a reliable authority, being offended doesn't make someone's opinion correct. The fewer people recognizing some niche, novel reinterpretation don't decide for the rest of the community the conventional definitions of words.
The conventional definition of that word has stood far longer & holds more weight, so people are justified to generally accept it & reject unconventional ones. I think you're aware of that: innocuous instances are common.
Blanket condemnation based on an unconventional meaning of a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers. The general community would be right to consider such antagonism & the people who defend it unjustified & petty.
You like this word. Reflect a bit: do good people twist people's words when they understand the usual meaning isn't what they claim? Do good people think it's right to antagonize nonoffenders?
I think good people would try to interpret messages according to their likely meanings & not the worst, unsupported ones.
There's a fair argument here that your understanding of this situation is backward.
That indicates your clouded judgement: you're failing to recognize conventional language isn't just a matter of opinion (no matter how strong).