silverwizard

I always get unreasonably mad when people gatekeep language by insisting on using language for outdated technology.

I once got gatekept because I called it a movie and not a "film". Both are kinda archaic, but uh, film was definitely less true.

People using the word "track" to talk about a "song" is also unreasonable. Sure - yes - there are situations where an album's TOC entry is not just a song, but in no way is it a track.

I'm fine with this being jargon - it just makes me feel crazy when this jargon is used to gatekeep. Insisting on calling people stupid for not using metaphors that make you seem old.

Mar 10 at 1:19pmWeb
Show thread⛅ w chance of bearsMar 10

@silverwizard Eh, the film/movie example is a gatekeeping/snobbery issue but for "track" I think you're mostly weighing etymology too heavily.

If I want a word that's non-specific as to whether a recording is a song or instrumental, "track" is a word in existing usage that works. That it came into usage because of a literal description of an older technology's implementation is at this point trivia.

Show threadsilverwizardMar 10
@teejeh No - I get the word track more. It makes more sense than other options. Like - there's value for track as a word - it's just weird that people thing it's more accurate than "song"
Show thread⛅ w chance of bearsMar 10
@silverwizard I mean, in a whole bunch of cases I would agree that "track" is more accurate than "song". Most of them are best introduced with the phrase "if I must get really pedantic", though, and my condolences if you've managed to encounter people who didn't realize that that if-statement is false.
Show threadsilverwizardMar 10
@teejeh lol - it just means *you're* the pedant :D