A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[TheDrake]

Yes. Excellent. Well it looks like it already got codified into the language as legitimate.

Facepalm. Is that what you literally think that a dictionary does? Determines which usages are “legitimate”?

If dumbasses routinely misuse a word in a specific way, the dictionary will describe that usage. That doesn’t mean that ain’t becomes good English.

Dictionaries describe how words are used. Including how stupid people use words.  Such descriptions don’t turn the drooling morons into respectable people.

And with that rant, it is now fair game to call Pete on every incorrect usage of any word he employs...

[Kasandra]

And with that rant, it is now fair game to call Pete on every incorrect usage of any word he employs...

Not sure why you decided that.  Dictionaries are only reliable when the words they define are looked at in isolation, and then only as a reference to the usage(s) at the time the dictionary was composed.  Communication invents meanings (not definitions) for words in context.  I recently wrote a 500 word mini-review of the history of the word "literal" for a friend with similar interests, serendipitously because he brought it up, not me.  Johnson's 1757 dictionary defines the word to mean "primitive," by which he meant that it referred to a single letter in the alphabet that conveyed no significance of its own.  After another 100 or so years the primary definition was "exactly as written" and primitive was relegated to the secondary definition.  Another century on, "primitive" had disappeared altogether.

[Pete at Home]

Drake,
Thank you for accurately using the word “usage” rather than “grammar” to identify the issue at hand.

But you still don’t get it. It is not about “correct” usage. There are different usages and each one says test something slightly different about what’s being said and/or about the speaker.  For example, if you refer to black people as “negroes” your usage is not “incorrect” but conveys an attitude that you may not intend.

And with that rant, it is now fair game to call Pete on every incorrect usage of any word he employs...

It certainly would be fair game if I had said that in response to bad usage from a board participant. But unless you,Drake, are Trump’s personal avatar on this board, it makes no sense for you to Vow revenge.

With that said, if I ever do say anything as stupid as conflating literal with figurative, please do call me on it.  We do have a lot of arguments about usage, and I don’t believe I’ve ever complained about you repeatedly calling me on mine. It gives me the opportunity to clarify what I meant, either by changing my usage or by correcting your assumptions about me and my message.

[Pete at Home]

In California usage, “Mexican” refers to any brown faced person, usually a laborer, who speaks a Latin based language.  If that usage spreads then eventually it will appear in the dictionaries, if it hasn’t already. The usage is never the less offensive and miss leading


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Mexican

Definition of Mexican
1a : a native or inhabitant of Mexico
b : a person of Mexican descent
c Southwest : a person of mixed Spanish and Indian descent

Dictionaries are prescriptive with regard to spelling, but purely descriptive with regard to usage

[TheDeamon]

In California usage, “Mexican” refers to any brown faced person, usually a laborer, who speaks a Latin based language.  If that usage spreads then eventually it will appear in the dictionaries, if it hasn’t already. The usage is never the less offensive and miss leading


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Mexican

Definition of Mexican
1a : a native or inhabitant of Mexico
b : a person of Mexican descent
c Southwest : a person of mixed Spanish and Indian descent

Dictionaries are prescriptive with regard to spelling, but purely descriptive with regard to usage

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377744/

When a mysterious fog surrounds the boundaries of California, there is a communication breakdown and all the Mexicans disappear, affecting the economy and the state stops working missing the Mexican workers and dwellers.

Released in 2004, IIRC, "Mexican" saw the wider use, not the technically correct use.

[TheDrake]

Well, I use literal in the second sense, and I don't think I'm a moron.

[TheDrake]

“We threw wrenches, we threw everything even literally the kitchen sink at the glass and it didn’t break. For some weird reason, it broke now,” Musk said, drawing laughs. “I don’t know why.

Do you suppose they actually did use a kitchen sink in this testing? Why haven't people been retweeting Musk for misleading people by stating that he hit a truck with a sink?

Because it is obvious what he meant.

[Fenring]

It's no mystery: "literally" has been a meme/slang word for a while now. It means "even as much as!", a sort of exclamation. e.g. I did literally everything I could! Consider it to be a modern usage of what might have been I indubitably did everything in my power!.

Not sure why this is a point of argument.

[ScottF]

“We threw wrenches, we threw everything even literally the kitchen sink at the glass and it didn’t break. For some weird reason, it broke now,” Musk said, drawing laughs. “I don’t know why.

Do you suppose they actually did use a kitchen sink in this testing? Why haven't people been retweeting Musk for misleading people by stating that he hit a truck with a sink?

Because it is obvious what he meant.

This is just one of the 4155 lies Musk has told over the past 5 years.

[Pete at Home]

Well, I use literal in the second sense, and I don't think I'm a moron.

I don't either, but like Trump you pander to morons or let yourself go with their flow.

It's a big deal to me, Fenring, because the usage obfuscates the distinction between literal and figurative and contributes to Americans' general stupidity about figurative language, which leads to idiocy like people using actual rods to avoid spoiling the child, and so on.  Bible illiteralism is the cause of many hateful phenomena in what passes for our society.

[Fenring]

It's a big deal to me, Fenring, because the usage obfuscates the distinction between literal and figurative and contributes to Americans' general stupidity about figurative language, which leads to idiocy like people using actual rods to avoid spoiling the child, and so on.  Bible illiteralism is the cause of many hateful phenomena in what passes for our society.

I know what you mean, but I've observed that annoyance over the misuse of "literally" seems to have become just as much of a meme as the slang usage of it, to the point where both the 'misuse' and the correction of the misuse almost seem to be in sympatico in the memeing.

There are many terms that became slang in the 20th century where the 'misuse' of it is really at odds with the intended use; for instance 'radical', which meant extraordinarily off-center politically or socially (when used as a noun) or a large degree of difference (when used as an adjective), and came to mean "extraordinary" without qualification; "rad". I suspect that the main difference between radical and literally in how much their usage annoys people is that radical gets used in such different contexts that it's always clear whether someone means "excellent!" or "extreme". "A radical change in temperature" is probably not going to be taken to mean "the change in temperature is excellent!" Whereas if one says "this is literally the worst day ever" it might actually mean that there has been no worse day, but more likely just means it's a very bad day. That potential confusion may be what's annoying, although I can't be sure. Compared to most slang usages the slang in this case is suspiciously close to the original meaning in some cases so can create language issues. But that doesn't really address what I take to be a fact that it's clearly slid into slang usage these days, rather than it being a definitional problem.

[Pete at Home]

Radical still communicates something.

The odious abuse of “literally” has no function except to obfuscate and increase the word count.

It obfuscates to the point where if somebody uses the term in the meaningful sense, it’s unclear that he or she meant “not figuratively.”  The odious usage belongs in the same category as the n-word.

[TheDrake]

Radical still communicates something.

The odious abuse of “literally” has no function except to obfuscate and increase the word count.

It obfuscates to the point where if somebody uses the term in the meaningful sense, it’s unclear that he or she meant “not figuratively.”  The odious usage belongs in the same category as the n-word.

I'm literally dying right now. This usage has a purpose, to highlight and make your statement more forceful. I'm dying right now, on its own, is already a silly metaphor. By adding literally you force the reader or listener to focus on the statement. It is the same usage as "I'm seriously dying right now." or "I'm totally dying right now."

I don't think that it is a threat that somebody who tells the 911 operator that their friend is literally dying that they will take it figuratively.

Likewise, saying that something is literally invisible, when there is no such thing as invisible vehicles.

[Pete at Home]

If the metaphor of dying isn’t strong enough for you, get a better one. You are educated. You owe society better than that.   In Augusta GA I know this convicted murderer named Stacy “Mayhem” Carr who likes to literally pull out a BB gun that looks like a real pistol to add emphasis to his words. I should set you up. Other tacky tricks to add emphasis include writing full sentences in capital letters.

[Pete at Home]

“ I don't think that it is a threat that somebody who tells the 911 operator that their friend is literally dying that they will take it figuratively“

you think? I take it that you haven’t had to make a life or death 911 call in the last 10 years.

[Fenring]

“ I don't think that it is a threat that somebody who tells the 911 operator that their friend is literally dying that they will take it figuratively“

you think? I take it that you haven’t had to make a life or death 911 call in the last 10 years.

I think you make your own bed if you use the word "literally" on a 911 call regardless of usage. I don't see how that word would help you. "He is literally bleeding to death!" doesn't make the severity any clearer to the dispatcher than "He is bleeding to death!" does. Basically if you use slang on a 911 call and it misleads them I think that's on you; in the case of "literally" I don't know why you would literally use it at all.

[Pete at Home]

“ I don't think that it is a threat that somebody who tells the 911 operator that their friend is literally dying that they will take it figuratively“

you think? I take it that you haven’t had to make a life or death 911 call in the last 10 years.

I think you make your own bed if you use the word "literally" on a 911 call regardless of usage. I don't see how that word would help you. "He is literally bleeding to death!" doesn't make the severity any clearer to the dispatcher than "He is bleeding to death!" does. Basically if you use slang on a 911 call and it misleads them I think that's on you; in the case of "literally" I don't know why you would literally use it at all.

I'm not the genius that (1) said that the deplorable use of "literally" was necessary for emphasis, and
(2) that focused the discussion on the context of a 911 call.

Nevertheless, you are wrong (sorry, Ornery tradition).

The whole point of having a word "literally" in the language is to distinguish actuality from a common figure of speech.

Drake: my neighbor literally exploded
911: so what's the problem?
Drake: I mean there are pieces of him literally all over the lawn
911: so what happened?  You said he just lost his temper

Granted its not a very likely scenario.  If Drake had a more commonplace usage to discuss, he should raise it; he's the one that wanted to discuss the 911 context.

[Kasandra]

The whole point of having a word "literally" in the language is to distinguish actuality from a common figure of speech.

It served that function for hundreds of years, but now it also has the opposite usage.  We're in the post truth world of fake reality now. Deal with it.

[Pete at Home]

I stand unconvinced.

Has Drake successfully misled you as to how this side track arose? I didn’t jump up and insult anyone on this forum for how they use the word “literally.”  Reread the thread of you don’t believe me.

[Kasandra]

Now I'm literally lost to see where this thread is going.

[DonaldD]

I think you are figuratively lost...

[Kasandra]

I think you are figuratively lost...

Depends on what dictionary you're using.

[TheDrake]

I stand unconvinced.

Has Drake successfully misled you as to how this side track arose? I didn’t jump up and insult anyone on this forum for how they use the word “literally.”  Reread the thread of you don’t believe me.

You insulted all people who use that word in that manner, did you not?

[TheDeamon]

Now I'm literally lost to see where this thread is going.

Given what its initial subject matter is, it seems you've gone full circle.

[cherrypoptart]

Maybe this will end up being added to the list of words that are their own opposites.

https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/stories/30-words-that-are-their-own-opposites

[Kasandra]

One of my favorites is "nice," which shows how meanings of words drift and adapt over time.  Originally it meant not knowing, or being an imbecile (idiot). All hell broke loose (literally?) during the middle ages when it progressively acquired usages of inoffensive, then fussy, then dainty, and finally sharp or precise, where we have arrived at the opposite of its original meaning.

Another good word is "mystery".  Ever wonder why "mystery plays" commemorating the stages of the cross were called that?

[Pete at Home]

Another one is "bigot." It used to mean someone who thinks that differing thoughts are dangerous.   Now it means someone who thinks dangerous thoughts.

[Pete at Home]

Drake, you can use the word "literally" in the dumbass obfuscating sense all you like and I won't single you out personally for it.  If you're going to get pissy just because of my general opinion about the word, that's your problem, not mine.

[ScottF]

Another one is "bigot." It used to mean someone who thinks that differing thoughts are dangerous.   Now it means someone who thinks dangerous thoughts.

It can also mean someone whom I disagree with but lack the ability to articulate how/why. See “homophobe”.

[Crunch]

Another one is "bigot." It used to mean someone who thinks that differing thoughts are dangerous.   Now it means someone who thinks dangerous thoughts.

It can also mean someone whom I disagree with but lack the ability to articulate how/why. See “homophobe”.

Or racist.

[Pete at Home]

One of my favorites is "nice," which shows how meanings of words drift and adapt over time.  Originally it meant not knowing, or being an imbecile (idiot). All hell broke loose (literally?) during the middle ages when it progressively acquired usages of inoffensive, then fussy, then dainty, and finally sharp or precise, where we have arrived at the opposite of its original meaning.

Another good word is "mystery".  Ever wonder why "mystery plays" commemorating the stages of the cross were called that?

To quiet the masses who complain that the underlying dogma makes little sense.

See also Measure for Measure, Act 4 scene 2, where an executioner describes his craft as a mystery analogous to the priesthood, and a pimp replies that pimping must be as well since his whores "paint" themselves.

[Kasandra]

That's pretty good, Pete.  A "mystery" (or "mistery) was a craft or profession back in that time, and a guild was a "misterium".  "Mystery Plays" were small pageants staged by guilds celebrating the steps of the cross.  The word had tentacles into meanings of both "service/servant", an agent in civil or religious affairs acting under orders, and "secrecy", as in specialized professional or organizational knowledge held privately within the group.  Modern meanings of minister and mystery are derived from both of those.

[Pete at Home]

I played Joseph in a university production of a medieval mystery play. Plus measure for measure was always my favorite Shakespeare. Very timely in the age of me too, btw.

[yossarian22c]

...targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Nothing like threatening war crimes to deescalate a situation.

[Seriati]

...targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Nothing like threatening war crimes to deescalate a situation.

What war crime would that be?

[rightleft22]

Haven't been paying attention to the spin and such but heard that Trump was convinced by someone that wanted the strike telling him Obama wouldn't do it. 
No confirmation on that but under new truth of truthful hyperbole many could imagine this have a sliver of truth so true? Live by the sword die by the sword.

[Wayward Son]

...targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Nothing like threatening war crimes to deescalate a situation.

What war crime would that be?

Directing unlawful attacks against sites and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, or historic monuments.  Check out U.N. Resolution 2347, which was written specifically to condemn ISIS destruction of heritage sites, and passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council.

Noting the recent decision by the International Criminal Court, which for the first time convicted a defendant for the war crimes of intentionally directing attacks against religious buildings and historic monuments and buildings, ... Affirms that directing unlawful attacks against sites and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, or historic monuments may constitute, under certain circumstances and pursuant to international law a war crime and that perpetrators of such attacks must be brought to justice...

Trump isn't satisfied in imitating the worst of (alleged) Democratic behavior.  Now he wants to imitate some of the ISIS' behavior.

You guys must be so proud of electing him right now.  He looks to ISIS for his, and your, moral guidance. 

[Pete at Home]

Wayward is mostly correct. He fails only in confusing committing a crime with threatening to commit one.

[Seriati]

...targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Nothing like threatening war crimes to deescalate a situation.

What war crime would that be?

Directing unlawful attacks against sites and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, or historic monuments.  Check out U.N. Resolution 2347, which was written specifically to condemn ISIS destruction of heritage sites, and passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council.

Which sites are those that are on Trump's list of targets?

[Seriati]

Wayward is mostly correct. He fails only in confusing committing a crime with threatening to commit one.

As far as I can tell, Wayward and the Dems are speculating.  Or did I miss Trump specifying which sites he meant?  Not every cultural site is entitled to immunity, for example our seats of government are also historical/cultural sites.   Any site that has been repurposed to support a combat operation is also no longer "purely" dedicated to it's other purpose.

Speculation is not evidence of a war crime.

[Lloyd Perna]

You guys haven't been paying attention.  There are several mind readers on this forum.  They know his inner thoughts and motivation for every decision he makes, sometimes even before he does.

[TheDrake]

You guys haven't been paying attention.  There are several mind readers on this forum.  They know his inner thoughts and motivation for every decision he makes, sometimes even before he does.

And since he's the master of ambiguity, it gives plenty of room to speculate. Why choose the word cultural? Even he probably doesn't know, or he cribbed it from social media.

Here's his version of clarification.

Speaking aboard Air Force One on his return to Washington on Sunday from a holiday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump said: "They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites. It doesn’t work that way."

That sure sounds like "Why should we follow the rules when they don't?", does it not?

[Kasandra]

You guys haven't been paying attention.  There are several mind readers on this forum.  They know his inner thoughts and motivation for every decision he makes, sometimes even before he does.

Maybe not as hard as you might think

[Wayward Son]

...targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran &  the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

Nothing like threatening war crimes to deescalate a situation.

What war crime would that be?

Directing unlawful attacks against sites and buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, or historic monuments.  Check out U.N. Resolution 2347, which was written specifically to condemn ISIS destruction of heritage sites, and passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council.

Which sites are those that are on Trump's list of targets?

So are you saying, Seriati, that after assassinating Iran's #2 leader (or at least someone in the top 10), which brought out tens of thousands of mourners into the streets, and causing the Iranian government to vow revenge, that maybe Trump is simply threatening to take out a road-side marker to keep them from retaliating?

If they aren't significant cultural targets, then why bother?

And if they are significant, what makes you believe that none of them will rise to the level of those protected by Resolution 2347?

Speculation is not evidence of a war crime.

No, I haven't accused him of any war crimes, yet.  As the original post said, he is threatening to commit war crimes.  Threatening to take out Iranian cultural targets.

You guys haven't been paying attention.  There are several mind readers on this forum.  They know his inner thoughts and motivation for every decision he makes, sometimes even before he does.

Since when has reading someone's words and trying to understand what they mean reach the level of reading someone's mind?  That's what words are supposed to be for, aren't they?  To communicate to other people know what you are thinking. 

Besides, no Democrats believes you can read Trump's mind.  You can't read something that doesn't exist. 

[D.W.]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point Trump could "threaten" war crimes on social media unchecked.  It's only if he orders them that the status quo changes...   

He's not faced repercussions for what he's only "said" (tweeted) thus far.

[rightleft22]

It's only if he orders them that the status quo changes.

even then I doubt very much he would be held accountable while in office.

[Pete at Home]

It’s beyond deplorable for wayward to continue referring to Iran’s master of assassins and torturers as if he was a lead figure of “government”. He was equivalent of the USSR’s chief of SMERSH.

[Pete at Home]

Nevertheless, the 52 cultural sites threat does make me uncomfortable.

What I fear is that we may have lost credibility to lead continued sanctions on Iran.

[TheDrake]

It’s beyond deplorable for wayward to continue referring to Iran’s master of assassins and torturers as if he was a lead figure of “government”. He was equivalent of the USSR’s chief of SMERSH.

Or the Director of the CIA. Unless you think none of them have ordered assassinations, torture, and fueled attacks by terrorists and opposition groups.

[NobleHunter]

It’s beyond deplorable for wayward to continue referring to Iran’s master of assassins and torturers as if he was a lead figure of “government”. He was equivalent of the USSR’s chief of SMERSH.

Failing to recognize his importance in Iran seems like a recipe for failure to understand why Iran is so upset at his assassination death. It risks falling into the trap of demonization which makes war seem like a reasonable answer to the problem of Iran.