You can make up meanings all you want, but I'll rely on a dictionary. I'm sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.
And when I say "nick fuentes is a nazi" do you understand what I'm saying, or do you point out that he's not actually a member of the NSDAP?
I'm sorry if the need for common definition offends you. Yet, still the use of these terms by Republicans and Palestinian protestors seems the same to me, sorry.
To be clear, you don't agree that nick fuentes is a nazi?
2 hours later edit: anyone else find it funny how people with terrible opinions never answer direct questions and prefer to argue semantics?
doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn't the play you seem to think it is
the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it's possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry
I’m sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.
it's more that they don't have a definition at all
they use it similarly to "woke", in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context
if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you'd get something like "person i disagree with to the point of dislike", at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as "i don't like people i don't like"
it's completely dissimilar
I'm boiling it down because this isn't the kind of platform to express a thousand words. I use the dictionary, as you should. You seem to make a word which it is not. That may work in your world and it may work in the Republican world, but that doesn't mean people with a common language have to accept it. Both you and Republicans are trying demean others using language which is not applicable.
you're not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you're saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary
those are two completely different things and it's astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with "i'm sure you can do better than that"
Still trying to justify your use of language...you need to be able to spit Zionist. That really says something about you.
i'm not trying to justify my use of language, i'm explaining why you're wrong, and you're responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary
Vauguely? You've already Googled it and you know it's true. It's really telling that you keep on this for days.
the first result is the wikipedia article, which as we've discussed, is several thousand words long
You can make up meanings all you want, but I'll rely on a dictionary. I'm sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.
And when I say "nick fuentes is a nazi" do you understand what I'm saying, or do you point out that he's not actually a member of the NSDAP?
I'm sorry if the need for common definition offends you. Yet, still the use of these terms by Republicans and Palestinian protestors seems the same to me, sorry.
To be clear, you don't agree that nick fuentes is a nazi?
2 hours later edit: anyone else find it funny how people with terrible opinions never answer direct questions and prefer to argue semantics?
doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn't the play you seem to think it is
the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it's possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry
it's more that they don't have a definition at all
they use it similarly to "woke", in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context
if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you'd get something like "person i disagree with to the point of dislike", at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as "i don't like people i don't like"
it's completely dissimilar
I'm boiling it down because this isn't the kind of platform to express a thousand words. I use the dictionary, as you should. You seem to make a word which it is not. That may work in your world and it may work in the Republican world, but that doesn't mean people with a common language have to accept it. Both you and Republicans are trying demean others using language which is not applicable.
you're not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you're saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary
those are two completely different things and it's astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with "i'm sure you can do better than that"
Still trying to justify your use of language...you need to be able to spit Zionist. That really says something about you.
i'm not trying to justify my use of language, i'm explaining why you're wrong, and you're responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary
Vauguely? You've already Googled it and you know it's true. It's really telling that you keep on this for days.
the first result is the wikipedia article, which as we've discussed, is several thousand words long
Ridiculous. Enjoy your life and your hate.
lmfao