Page 2 of 3

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 9:44 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mr Man,

I really do tire of repeating myself and being expected to dumb things down to a level where you may be able to comprehend them. If this fails, I shan't be trying again.

It's inherently sexist because it is denigrating the speaker, and diminishing the value of their words, merely on account of their gender.

Now, if comprehension still eludes you in this instance, you may think or believe as you like because, let's be honest, I have better things in life to do than highlight hypocrisy that Mr Man seemingly struggles to comprehend.

All the best to you and yours.

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 10:59 am
by Mr Man
retrofuturist wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 9:44 am I really do tire of repeating myself and being expected to dumb things down to a level where you may be able to comprehend them. If this fails, I shan't be trying again.

It's inherently sexist because it is denigrating the speaker, and diminishing the value of their words, merely on account of their gender.

Now, if comprehension still eludes you in this instance, you may think or believe as you like because, let's be honest, I have better things in life to do than highlight hypocrisy that Mr Man seemingly struggles to comprehend.

So Mitch didn't cover how "mansplain" is inherently sexist"? Okay.

At least now you have given your answer. Well done.

So you think "It's inherently sexist because it is denigrating the speaker, and diminishing the value of their words, merely on account of their gender". Okay

I don't think that is "merely on account of their gender". It is more about the style of communication in my opinion.

I don't see it is sexist or as hate speech.

:smile:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:06 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 10:59 am So Mitch didn't cover how "mansplain" is inherently sexist"? Okay.
That's not what I said.

I said, "Mitch covered that. Perhaps you were too preoccupied with his body language and such to hear what was said?"

To wit, he did cover it, at 0:28, and at 1:28.
Mr Man wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 10:59 am At least now you have given your answer. Well done.
Are you Mr. Mansplaining now? :lol:

I'm not sure if you understood this, but this topic isn't a job interview for Dictionary.com 8-)

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:19 pm
by Polar Bear
Commenting on Retro’s and Mr. Man’s back and forth on the Aussie senate video, I do think the female senator’s use of mansplain was an unhelpful use of rhetoric. While it may very well be the case that there is a statistically significant phenomenon consisting in men explaining things to women in a condescending tone where women do not do the same sort of thing, it is still a term that lacks substance. It’s pure rhetoric and distraction from basic informational content, and therefore should be considered repulsive to the ideal politician, I.e. a philosopher, one who loves wisdom.

The male senator for his part shouldn’t have dragged out his problem with the term mansplaining, which could be construed to be whining. He should have instead simply offered a quick apology for cutting off the line of questioning, perhaps prematurely, and then he should have simply stated that he felt it would expedite the arrival to whatever substantive point/issue was at stake.

If there is such a thing as mansplaining, let the sociologists argue about it, the politicians ought only need to refine their speech so as to communicate information based opinions effectively without getting bogged down in emotions and pure rhetoric. But alas, this is probably a fool’s hope.

As for the dictionary definition of mansplaining, it is assuredly a fact that at least some men do explain some things to women in a condescending tone because those men associate womenhood with some deficit in knowledge or reasoning ability. So the dictionary isn’t necessarily sexist. It would be ridiculous if the dictionary said that anytime a man explains something in a condescending tone to a woman, that that would be mansplaining in the sense that the man would be condescendingly explaining to the woman because she’s a woman.

It’s perfectly possible that a man could be explaining something to a woman condescendingly for reasons other than her being a woman, in which case it shouldn’t be considered mansplaining if mansplaining is to be a word that has descriptive value. If anytime a man explains something condescendingly to a woman can be called mansplaining, then mansplaining is not a descriptive word but rather an expressive word, like ouch. All it would function as is a sound to indicate that someone finds it unpleasant when women are spoken to condescendingly by men. This purely expressive use is unhelpful. Probably in reality the descriptive and expressive use of the term mansplaining are conflated often, which is also unhelpful.

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 5:37 pm
by binocular
retrofuturist wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 6:54 amPossibly, but to actually work for a dictionary company and not grasp the limitations of language, or comprehend the contradictions and double-standards in one's own definitions is either both... or perhaps if ill-will should not be presupposed, just a double-dose of stupidity.
Applied linguistics, like writing dictionaries, is also a political activity, by far not just a strictly linguistic one. Not understanding that is evidence of a lacking education. Pretending not to understand that is yet another political activity.

See also sociolinguistics.
The term "mansplain" is inherently sexist
Words change their meaning over time, or within different contexts.

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 5:40 pm
by binocular
perkele wrote: Tue May 29, 2018 9:18 pmNo interest in discussing this, actually. Just wanted to mention, since Dictionary.com came up elsewhere, why I think it's run by idiots and should not be trusted as an authority on language or anything.
And a dictionary compiled by a team of academics is smart and honest, and authoritative?
Why -- can you justify your reasoning here?

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 9:23 pm
by perkele
binocular wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 5:40 pmAnd a dictionary compiled by a team of academics is smart and honest, and authoritative?
Why -- can you justify your reasoning here?
That's not my reasoning. So, no, I can't.
I also would have assumed that there is probably a team of academics working for dictionary.com. But I'm not sure.

As I said, I have no interest in discussing it, or elaborating on it any further than I did. I just left this here as an addendum to my opinion in that post and made a new topic of it to avoid cluttering there.

You can take it or leave it or discuss it with whoever is interested.

Or just abide by the Dude's wisdom:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 1:10 pm
by Pseudobabble
perkele wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 9:23 pm the Dude's wisdom:
:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

:rofl:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 2:30 pm
by perkele
binocular wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 5:40 pm
Pseudobabble wrote: Thu May 31, 2018 1:10 pm
perkele wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 9:23 pm the Dude's wisdom:
:goodpost:
Actually I am sorry that this may have come off as dismissive in a condescending way.
What I meant is: I have no deeper reasoning to discuss, but just an opinion. That's all.
I am just too fond of making silly jokes. It's an unwholesome habit that I probably should keep better in check, sometimes.
:toilet:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:25 pm
by Pseudobabble
perkele wrote: Thu May 31, 2018 2:30 pm
binocular wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 5:40 pm
Pseudobabble wrote: Thu May 31, 2018 1:10 pm
perkele wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 9:23 pm the Dude's wisdom:
:goodpost:
Actually I am sorry that this may have come off as dismissive in a condescending way.
What I meant is: I have no deeper reasoning to discuss, but just an opinion. That's all.
I am just too fond of making silly jokes. It's an unwholesome habit that I probably should keep better in check, sometimes.
:toilet:
I'm just a big fan of The Dude, and that is my favourite quote.

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 11:11 pm
by Kim OHara
perkele wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 9:23 pm
binocular wrote: Wed May 30, 2018 5:40 pmAnd a dictionary compiled by a team of academics is smart and honest, and authoritative?
Why -- can you justify your reasoning here?
That's not my reasoning. So, no, I can't.
I also would have assumed that there is probably a team of academics working for dictionary.com. But I'm not sure.
Assuming is usually bad practice and these days it's usually unnecessary.
The front page of dictionary.com screams "populist, junky" to me - pop-up ads are a bad sign - but I found the "About" page. It says:
Dictionary.com’s main, proprietary source is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, which is continually updated by our team of experienced lexicographers and supplemented with trusted, established sources including American Heritage and Harper Collins to support a range of language needs.
... so at least they have a team of people who know how to look up a real dictionary ("experienced lexicographers") and a team (probably a bigger team) of website designers.
:juggling:
Could be worse, could be better.

:coffee:
Kim

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:06 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,

Oh dear... http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literally

literally
[lit-er-uh-lee]

adverb
  • 1. in the literal or strict sense:
    She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
    What does the word mean literally?


    2. in a literal manner; word for word:
    to translate literally.

    3. actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
    The city was literally destroyed.

    4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
    I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.
:?

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:46 am
by mikenz66
Yeah. The Oxford Dictionary got criticised for adding modern usage as well... 😎

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/1 ... rally.html

Mike

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:56 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,

Ughh... post-modernism.

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:06 am
by Kim OHara
mikenz66 wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:46 am Yeah. The Oxford Dictionary got criticised for adding modern usage as well... 😎

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/1 ... rally.html

Mike
:thanks:
I've just shared that to word-conscious friends and I'm looking forward to some outraged responses. :tongue:

The OED does say, “Our job is to describe the language people are using. The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it in this way," and the argument between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" approaches to words and grammar has been going on ever since dictionaries were invented, with no sign of a resolution. (Note that I don't count giving up in the face of overwhelming ignorance as a resolution.)
Kinda like some arguments on DW, come to think of it. :tongue:

:coffee:
Kim