“We’re watching a movie”
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
Since a conversation is incapable of being "retarded" you should probably simply use your other descriptors. Otherwise one runs the risk of being confused for being retarded, disabled or worse yet a confused leftist. Worse since a retarded or disabled person has a perfectly reasonable excuse for their condition but a leftist, for all intents and purpose, appear to be much more capable than those with a debilitating condition yet behave otherwise.
Try "this conversation is a useless argument on semantics."
Look, its not my fault our language has been butchered. The fact that the word is often incorrectly used in a non-literal way should not give the excuse for another to also use it incorrectly. How about just use the word correctly rather than playing into the madness.
Not sure why your even arguing this. If your bothered by someone calling you out and would rather continue to use those words in that way without being bothered, I don't know, send word to Webster or convince linguistic experts to change our language to your liking and have the rest of the masses use it in that way.
This is awful and laughable at the same time. You'll be fine without using "literally" I promise.
You act as though colloquial lenguage does not exist, or words, cannot have more than one use. The reason "literally" exists is because words can be used outside of their original meaning to mean something else.
No. 'Literally' does not exist for that reason.
'Literally' does nothing for a word or term said in context. If I say the term "that car is red" would it benefit that term to instead say "that car is literally red". No. Why? Because "red" means red and should not mean any other color when speaking English. Can someone interpret the word "red" to mean what the rest of us see as pink? Sure, but society doesnt adjust to the person in error by adding "literally" in front of "red" but instead we help correct the error.
Look, I'm a horrible speller and my grammar is below average. I welcome anyone that corrects me. While not the greatest writer and speaker I am big fan of those that use the spoken language with precision. When a speaker has a deep vocabulary, uses concise sentences and words well thought out before spoken, its a thing of beauty and something to behold. Why? Because it tugs at your attention, it zeros you in and inevitably pulls you in. Once a speaker is able to do that he/she can have great impact on the audience.
What happens after garnering his/her audience is what angels and devils are made from. History is littered with those examples.
Please, provide an example where the word is used correctly..
I did yesterday. Pasted below and clarified a bit more.
Example: If I startle someone and cause them to have a heart attack then visit this person at the hospital they may say "you literally scared me half to death."
When the same statement is said without "literally" the statement may be taken metaphorically.
Another may be "The energy prices in Europe may bring them to their knees." In this case bringing the Europeans to their knees may be taken metaphorically as in to the edge of starvation, or to the brink of financial pain etc. In this case they are not actually getting on their knees but instead the term is bringing attention to the desperate circumstance the Europeans may face but doesn't explicitly indicate the action of kneeling.
Add "literally" and the reader will understand a literal rather than metaphorical meaning as in bring them to their knees in prayer or to beg for releif. "The energy prices in Europe may literally bring them to their knees." In this scenario the inference is still that the Europeans will face desperation, financial pain and starvation but without the ambiguous metaphor.
But again "literally" is deployed in order to further zero in on a meaning of a term and in this case a metaphor. In your case "retarded" does not need clarification or defining but what I think you were trying to drive was amplification or to give the word more impact. That's why I suggested "very" rather than "literally." "Very" would not only tell the reader they are retarded, which is bad enough of an insult, but your driving it home even further by saying that they are worse than retarded and letting the reader boil in their imagination. What's "very retarded" pfff.. Who fucking knows but it's worse in fact so bad they haven't even come up with a word to describe it.
When insulting someone your best weapon is their own mind. The tool one would deploy to get into their mind is your words. The twist of the knife and cherry on top within your insult is the careful precision and placement of words and language. Every word chosen need not be wasted and must strike like a smiths sledge hammer. Cut out all fat, use your intellect and above all strengthen your understanding of logic.
Once you begin to perfect your language, logic and deployment thereof I would argue you would rarely if ever have the use for words "retarded" and "literally." Your choice of words would bleed out your opponent, your logical argumentative skills and deployment would serve to insult. If done correctly you may have convinced a few of those that disagree to battle alongside rather than against.