(02-25-2019 11:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 11:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So in other words -- exactly the scenario that you mocked George about posting. Got it.

So 'reparations' doesnt mean 'reparations' -- even though they explicitly backed that specific concept.

By the way 93 -- not my definition. Try a dictionary, they help.

Only in politics does 'reparations' not mean 'reparations'; and 'redistribution' not really mean 'redistribution'.

I guess I should never second-guess a movement that neither gives and credence to, let alone surfically gives a **** about a concept called 'textualism'. When you want something to *really* mean something else just claim a 'shifting definition'.

Tanq- I made the point early in this thread that the outcry about these candidates supporting "reparations" may be overdone since the details on what they actually supported was spotty. I was then told that of course these smart lawyers know *exactly* was reparations are. Please don't direct your annoyance at me that they clearly weren't using the term as you had assumed.

Whether the 'reparations' is in the form of a 'direct payment' *or* YOUR watered-down version of 'leveling the playing field', the term has a huge emotional component -- one designed to maximize the 'You done someone wrong' feeling *and* to maximize the 'collective guilt' that you are seemingly a supporter of.

I dont think you can argue that is not the intent of using the term, no matter how they (you, perhaps) try to 'dilute' the meaning and back away from it. Just calling it for what it is.

They (and you, mind you) try to use the 'wronged person' and 'wrongdoer' portions of definition to the fullest advantage. And then try to hide behind the even more weasly reasoning of 'well I really didnt mean it in thaaaaat waaaaaayyy.' </Portlandia TV show delivery style>

Quote:And "Try a dictionary, they help."? Nice. There is the possibility that YOUR definition of a term isn't shared universally? Yours is probably more correct,

Considering MY definition is one that appears in Merriam Webster, my guess is also that it is more correct. Is it possible that that that definition isnt shared universally --- perhaps. Doesnt say much for the people that decide to use that term apart from the defined meaning, does it?

Quote:though given that 99.8% of the population (me included) has never used the term "surfically".

Vocabulary is your friend. I dont know what that comment has to do with using a common definition, or whether 'my' definition of another term is correct. (that is aside from any snarkfest you want to go down, but that is your load to haul, my friend.)

Quote:I am somewhat hesistant to admit that as I may be seeing more negative reputation with a "Startling grammatical ignorance" comment.

You certainly are touchy about (several) neg rep events that havent occurred.