Who would argue what does and doesn't qualify for a random pejorative?
That's like arguing "which exact IQ value (with 2 decimal places) does somebody need to categorically exclude the term 'idiot'". It's a waste of time.
Look man, the goal of language is to communicate. If the way you communicate doesn't seem to land, then it's not time to argue "what logical arguments can I bring to make sure everyone knows I was right the first time around". It's time to ask yourself "how can I prevent these miscommunications."
You're not talking to compilers where you can look up the formal grammar and semantics and then say "well it says right here in the spec that I was right after all". Especially not when you want to argue the definition of subjective insults like "scumbag".
The term itself is used to communicate opinion and sentiment, not fact. So when someone takes issue with your use of it, they likely have issue with the tone or sentiment of a message, not with some objective fact about it.
>Who would argue what does and doesn't qualify for a random pejorative?
Some morals are fairly universal. For instance, there aren't many people who would argue that (unprovoked) murder is ethical.
I believe that this is a pretty clear-cut example of behaviour which can factually and accurately be described as unethical.
I believe that that interpretation would be supported by most decent human beings who actually looked into the matter and made an objective judgement.
I'd love to and have repeatedly called to hear from anyone who has an alternate set of ethics or an explanation for how the described behaviour doesn't qualify as unethical (and thus qualify for the term "scumbag").
Nobody has taken me up on this and provided such a view. Which tends to reinforce my position that no such view exists.
>That's like arguing "which exact IQ value (with 2 decimal places) does somebody need to categorically exclude the term 'idiot'".
Uh... you know that "idiot" was originally a medical term which would have had a pretty clear definition right along the lines of "anybody below X IQ" (with two zeroes in your requisite decimal places, I expect), right?
It would seem you've undermined your own argument by your choice of example.
>"how can I prevent these miscommunications."
Oh I'm waaaaay ahead of you there. The discussion on my submission has indeed been interesting and enlightening. I was quite taken aback by the amount of people who assumed that my initial question was rhetorical. Particularly given that I had specifically addressed that in the issue i raised. Technically, this is a mass-violation of the HN rules, which say you should assume good faith. (Not that I'd bother to do anything about it, unlike the people who flagged a bunch of my comments).
But none of that that makes any difference to the facts of the matter or the unethical behaviour in question.
>You're not talking to compilers where you can look up the formal grammar and semantics and then say "well it says right here in the spec that I was right after all". Especially not when you want to argue the definition of subjective insults like "scumbag".
I disagree. Words have meaning. People should take the time to parse the sentences they're reading. And this seems pretty clear cut to me. Nobody has taken me up by providing anything like a justification for these actions which could be interpreted in any other way.
Scumbag: n. A person regarded as despicable.
Despicable: adj. Deserving of contempt or scorn; vile.
If nobody can give me a justification for why these actions don't deserve contempt, then the word "scumbag" is purely descriptive. It's not even an insult, just a fact.
>The term itself is used to communicate opinion and sentiment, not fact.
As I just mentioned, that's not how I was using it. I argue that it is a statement of fact, and I have (repeatedly) solicited and indeed welcome dissenting opinions. So far I see a grand total of zero such opinions.
>So when someone takes issue with your use of it, they likely have issue with the tone or sentiment of a message, not with some objective fact about it.
tbh I'm not really all that interested in what people think of my tone. Facts are infinitely more important. If someone has an issue with my tone, then I'd suggest not engaging in the discussion. Or meditation. Or mood stabilisers. Or a plugin to replace nasty words they don't like ("it", for example) with something else. Or disconnecting from the Internet. I've got better things to do with my time than trying to anticipate what words people I've never met will like or dislike. If you take offense at the tone of something I say, then frankly (and I do wish there was a nicer way of saying this, but:) that's your problem, not mine.
> Uh... you know that "idiot" was originally a medical term which would have had a pretty clear definition right along the lines of "anybody below X IQ"
Yes, I do know that. That's not what people mean when they use it as a pejorative. They might reference it, but they don't use that word to convey that fact.
If someone calls you an idiot and you pull out an IQ test, they're just going to laugh at you.
> I disagree. Words have meaning.
I similarly think arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite. If you want, try to find a linguist to argue that with.
> Facts are infinitely more important.
If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults. You did, therefore I think it's rightful for people to read your message with tone and emotion and try to parse that too. If you didn't want to convey those things, you should not have used that word.
You said that it's a waste of time to argue what IQ score qualifies as "Idiot". There is a clear and concrete answer to that question, because the word "idiot" has a medical definition. Yes, you were correct in your statement that it's a waste of time to argue, but not for the reason you state: There is a clear and correct answer. (at least) one person involved in such an argument will be empirically incorrect.
>arguing the "prescriptive" versus "descriptive" models of language is trite
Then I'd suggest that in future you should avoid starting arguments about it.
>If you want to argue facts, just don't use pejoratives and insults.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't accept it as an insult in this case. It is merely a fact, empirically correct. The audacity maintainers are scumbags (and to be clear, I mean all of them, not just the guy who blocked me, not just the muse employees: anybody who hasn't left the project, as they're all complicit in this behaviour).
Unless someone can give me the differing ethical viewpoint that I have repeatedly solicited to the point of tedium, you can't sensibly argue otherwise.
