undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSir_Substance11y ago0 comments

I'm afraid that you are.

The english language is not defined by dictionaries, especially ones which change their definitions as political stunts.

It is defined by how people use it.

Many dictionaries have changed their definition of "literally" to include "figuratively", but I'm here to tell you that's not correct.

Similarly, I'm here to tell you that misogyny is specifically an abject hatred of women, no matter how much it would support your political cause for it to mean differently. Unlike "literally" your misuse of the worm misogyny puts you in the minority. Most people still use it correctly.

I, or someone like me, will for the foreseeable future be here, triggering you, whenever you misuse it.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

mbrock11y ago· 2 in thread

I know what a dictionary is, thank you. They're collections of definitions collected by professionals who monitor usage.

But I'd be interested to hear more about your theory of linguistic meaning. For example, if the meaning of a word is defined by how people use it, then what grounds do you have to reject my use of it?

You claim that I am in the minority when I use the word "misogyny" to mean not only "abject hatred" but also "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" — which is the definition vetted by the Oxford Dictionary of English. Can you demonstrate this in any way?

Assuming that I am in the minority: if minorities are not allowed to use words differently, how would the meanings of words ever change? Your ideas about the meanings of words are incoherent. With your own premises, the statement "most people use it correctly" is a tautology.

What political cause do you imply that I have? Do you think you have a different political cause?

Sir_SubstanceOP11y ago

>You claim that I am in the minority when I use the word "misogyny" to mean not only "abject hatred" but also "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against"

Fantastic, lets accept that definition for a second. Please explain how the following demonstrates "contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against" women:

>Nietzsche said, in his funny and somewhat misogynistic way: "Supposing truth is a woman, what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman's heart?"

mbrock11y ago

That's an interesting question. I did my best to explain my view in my first reply to you, but you seem pretty hostile to my point of view, and I don't have the time to discuss this in depth. If you're interested, I recommend you consult the available literature on Nietzsche's views on women, like Nesbitt Oppel's Nietzsche on Gender, which argues that though his writings often use misogynistic language, his views on women are deeper and don't reveal personal misogyny, more the opposite. I quoted his question about truth as a woman because I find it witty and thought-provoking, and my qualifier of "somewhat misogynistic" points to his use of the stereotyped image of women as basically irrational.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse