found the factory settings guy
Assuming all of his traits listed are “default” is part of the problem
(I’m sorry, I know it’s a joke and I do think it’s quite funny but I feel like I have to bring this up as a disclaimer)
Seeing it like this does make the whole thing seem weirder
Why do I doubt that “neurotypical” label
Nah, if this is built through the social process of “Ha dude, this would be so cool, tell me, what should I add?” I think it’s perfectly plausible.
The order he put it in certainly seems to hint at that process in action
factory settings
1
Sure, all digital records are falsifiable. But everything here seems… normal. I’m not sure what you mean? It’s not like they’re claiming their school made them shit in a sandbox or anything. Not trying to be antagonistic, I just don’t see anything here that screams “this is an outright lie” or even “this is implausible”
As a queer person, for me at least I find the ‘default’ language pretty funny. I think it could just as easily be seen as acknowledgement of privilege as the other way around
It’s “extra”, not “extro”. They’re “extra-terrestrials”, not “extro-terrestrials”. Extro is not a latin word, extra is.
(Excepting extra-verted people) There isn’t anywhere that I see an “extro” that should be an “extra”. Any chance you could point it out?
extrovert
I am on a crusade since about twenty years about this, and the war, well, it’s not going well…
because you’re wrong, lol, prescriptivism is just anti-linguistics. linguistics is desctiptive and based on usage
And the feeling of love is “just a bunch of chemical interactions” too, right?
Edit: Oh, and by the way
Why is extrovert sometimes spelled extravert?
Carl Jung based the two terms on Latin, in which “extra” means outside and “intro” means inside. A psychologist named Phyllis Blanchard later changed the spelling of the term in a paper, which played a role in the extrovert spelling becoming the predominant form.
Today, the extravert spelling is still widely used in psychology, while the extrovert spelling remains more common in popular usage.
Kaufman S. The difference between extraversion and extroversion. Scientific American.
See, that’s not “lankuake cheinkcsh”, that’s degradation of language because Phyllis got it wrong, and now everyone is.
“degradation of language” oh boy you’d hate to see how different English was 1000 years ago. Is modern English just a degradation of Anglo-Saxon? Or do we go even further back and say that all Indo-European languages are just degradations of PIE? You know that a large portion of the words that you use on a regular basis come from the exact process you describe right now, right? When exactly does normal language change become “degradation of lamguage”, is it just when you don’t like it?
Do you think that you know more about linguistics than every modern accredited linguist, to say that a certain type of language change in certain scenarios is “incorrect”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_change
Maybe you should solve this worksheet to get a feel lol. https://homepage.rub.de/silke.hoeche/Aspects of Language Change/Analogy and morphological change.htm
Linguistics is first and foremost a science, which means you don’t look at what occurs in reality and call it “wrong”. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive, and you look silly to a majority of linguists if you act like a word like “extrovert” is wrong, ESPECIALLY when it’s standard usage.
You probably think that AAVE is just “bastardized English” or that Scottish people speak wrong English.
I actually read Old English without much effort, as well as the languages it originated from, particularly Old Norse, French, and Germanic.
Degradation of language: misuse of language due to lack of education, erudition, or inclination. I can forgive some misinterpretation and adaptation, but that’s my issue. “Extro” does not make sense, unless someone got it wrong that one time and then spread it around until everyone was saying it wrong. That pisses me off, not to mention it makes me question Phyllis’s judgment on Jung’s corpus of work as a whole, she clearly didn’t read much of it.
There is a difference between a language evolving in response to changes in the environment or the human condition, and a language degrading into “barbar” because nobody bothered to learn how to speak, and thereby write, correctly. I believe that there are no 1:1 transmutations of words in such a manner which wouldn’t remove some amount of information, and the degradation of information is kind of a massive deal to humanity right now.
Let me ask, what does “begging the question” mean to you?
I actually read Old English without much effort, as well as the languages it originated from, particularly Old Norse, French, and Germanic.
Christ man you’re such a liar lmao. GERMANIC ISN’T A LANGUAGE. And certainly not a WRITTEN one. And English didn’t “originate” from French. Old English is unintelligible to Modern English speakers because it’s a completely different language, you are straight up lying through your teeth when you say you can read it fine, much less understand it. 85% of vocabulary in Old English isn’t even present in Modern English. Even more so with Old Norse lmao. French is very clearly unintelligible with English as well. French is literally my second language, so I can very easily tell you that. Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie about being able to understand other languages, including ficticious ones?
Degradation of language: misuse of language due to lack of education, erudition, or inclination. I can forgive some misinterpretation and adaptation, but that’s my issue. “Extro” does not make sense, unless someone got it wrong that one time and then spread it around until everyone was saying it wrong. That pisses me off, not to mention it makes me question Phyllis’s judgment on Jung’s corpus of work as a whole, she clearly didn’t read much of it.
That entire take is just silly. “Language degratation” is a lie sold to you by shitty middle school English Language Arts teachers.
“All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.”
Again, your stance is seen as completely stupid in the realm of actual linguistics science.
There is a difference between a language evolving in response to changes in the environment or the human condition, and a language degrading into “barbar” because nobody bothered to learn how to speak, and thereby write, correctly. I believe that there are no 1:1 transmutations of words in such a manner which wouldn’t remove some amount of information, and the degradation of information is kind of a massive deal to humanity right now.
There isn’t a difference. How do you think sound change and many other forms of language change occur without this ““degradation””? Do you think that the transitions between languages just happen because God willed it and everyone just accepted it? No, people back then complained about language change in the same exact way that you are now. You are speaking a “bastardized” form of language by your own logic. Every word you speak is completely different from the “educated” proscribed speak of before. Almost none of the words you’re saying are being used in their ““original”” sense.
Let me ask, what does “begging the question” mean to you?
According to your anti-scientific logic, it should mean to approach a question and start begging to it.
I want to ask you again, do you think AAVE, Scottish English, and all other large dialect groups of English are incorrect? Do you think you’re better at linguistics than a majority of professional linguists?
