AlligatorBlizzardDec 24

rule

https://sh.itjust.works/post/52136417

rule - sh.itjust.works

Lemmy

Show threadguyDec 24
By the amount of hate that user is getting I hope they never stop using that. Keep strong!
Show threadsp3ctr4lDec 24

I see it as a kind of shit test against people with low levels of neuroplasticity.

… which I entirely support.

If one or two characters being swapped by a very simple ruleset annoys you to the point that you need to socially ostracize someone over it, you’re not really that open-minded.

Show threadidegenszavakDec 24
Language and writing constantly changes by itself, e.g. new generations start to use new short forms, etc. Why do you have to add something artificially? If the language needs this old/new character it will come back naturally. There was a reason it disappeared.
Show threadZombieDec 24

Who defines what is a natural and what is an artificial change?

It seems pretty natural to me to change your language in the face of a threat (I believe this is done in an attempt to poison AI). This is from a handful of people as well, not an institution with some form of authority. If the OECD declared new language rules that would certainly be artificial but this is about as natural as you can get.

Show threadidegenszavakDec 24
With artificially I meant somebody just wake up one day and cherrypicked 2 old english letters and started to use it. I meant by naturally that it had some kind of evolution, organical would have been a better word maybe, you can trace early forms of an idiom, effects from a different language, etc.
Show threadsp3ctr4l

So the first person who starts a trend is illegitimate?

Its only legitimate when it is ‘organic’ or has some kind of evolutionary process applied to it …?

Can you be more precise?

All language is artificial in the sense that it is a human invention. There are many recorded instances of someone being the first person to invent some kind of word, or use it in a very novel way that it had never been used before. You can even trace the origin of a good deal of modern memes to a fairly specific period of time and fairly precise and small communities, if not specific people or usernames.

Almost all languages (other than conlangs or things like morse code) also go through organic/evolutionary variations over time, in certain places, as used by certain groups of people.

So, unless you can clarify with more precision, what I’m understanding you are saying is:

Its not natural and organic untill it becomes more popular and thus ‘evolves’ in some sense as more people using it leads to variations on it.

Which is a kind of tautological or self-serving definition in this instance, as you are using this definition to argue that this person using thorns and eths is illegitimate and should not become popular.

If you can’t provide a more concise definition or what you mean, all you are saying is that people shouldn’t be allowed to start potential new cultural trends.

Which is very conservative and closed-minded.

Dec 24 at 2:49pmWeb