News Louis CK has learned from his mistakes

[Johny.speiz]

Reminds me of the French Comedian Dieudonné, who made jokes about Jews, and at a time the PC police with ministers and French government wanted to shoot definitely his mouth off and getting him arrested, they lamentably failed, but they did him a great promotion.

At least he was funny, unlike CK.

 

[Deleted member 14866]

Reminds me of the French Comedian Dieudonné,

that guy worked for charlie hebdo right? cause i remember that paper getting in trouble for jew jokes

man, voltaire was the real prophet dawg

 

[Johny.speiz]

that guy worked for charlie hebdo right? cause i remember that paper getting in trouble for jew jokes

man, voltaire was the real prophet dawg

No, he didn't, but kinda publicly and humorously supported them after their terror attack, as a person non-grata.

 

[lastchancel]

Imagine being mad because a comedian implied that being White gives you advantages lol
The absolute state of low IQ stormfront fakecels

imagine reading this whole post and only coming away with this sub zero iq post

Everyone's probably familiar with what happened to Jewy C(uc)K about a year ago. The self-deprecating soydad, the most eminent wokeboi famed for material like this:





..had years old sexual indiscretions weaponized against him by a pair of fame-hungry whores. After selling out his "fellow White males" to ride the undiminishing tide of grievance pandering, he found that the social initiatives he cynically advanced to further himself had been stoked to heights sufficient to crash his own rapacious ascent to cultural magnate.

Instead of backpedalling and wringing out deferential apologies, he seemed to retreat totally from significance, all of his shrewdly calculated plans to appoint himself a "social critic", most significantly in the form of a new movie, collapsed before him.

Now, just before Current Year AD has set in, he seems to have mustered enough resolve to push back a bit. Pretty mild material, but indicative of a rather more promising course. At least makes fun of Hoggsucker and the Parkland Gang, etc.



The real item of interest is that, comparable to Jordan Peterson, he is a stunningly milquetoast figure that has become anathema to online bugmen, somehow supremely offensive in his "kids are pussies" routine that you could hear from any other apolitical, atheistic, ex-"rebel" GenXer undergoing a midlife crisis (cf. "order is an antidote to chaos. You must structure your life and provide for a nice woman, bucko"). In fact, the purpose of making this thread was to present you this screed penned by the smallest-souled of small-souled bugmen. This is hilariously emblematic of the histrionic, dopamine-and-trangression-addled mind of the prurient nu-male chickenhawk - this guy is obviously an oily voyeur orbiting human pincushion, Play-Doh factory accident trannies ("THESE FUCKING FUCK FUCK POLYABLED KIDS FUCKING FUCK EACH OTHER IN THE ASS AND IT'S FUCKING BEAUTIFUL. THEY DO DRUGS! I USED TO DO DRUGS AND READ POETRY! WHAT WOULD YOU FUCKING KNOW ABOUT THAT YOU SHITTY FUCKING GARBAGE HUMAN FASCIST COP DONALD DRUMPF FRATBOY NAZI!!!"):



Altogether, one of the most prominent cucks active in 2010s "culture" has given up. Though maybe years overdue, the male feminist par excellence (dissembling sexual predator with something to prove) has been shaken out of his suicidal stupor. His fall from shitlib grace throws the severely degenerated state of modern life into harsh relief.

discuss eh

you could be a journalist with your writing style. i usually don't read big blocks of text but this was different.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Put the thesaurus away.

What is it with midwits and /saying that every person with a working vocabulary above 20 words has a thesaurus on hand?

I have to imagine you're the sort of dumbfuck who tried to write like this in the past, gave up after realizing that you weren't cut out for it, now polices the use of any "showy" words.

I wanted to like you because you're trying to popularize "hole", but I suspect you might be gay.

Imagine being mad because a comedian implied that being White gives you advantages lol
The absolute state of low IQ stormfront fakecels

I have a feeling that anyone who quotes this laughable misinterpretation is a dribbling pussy. You (or anyone) are welcome to prove me wrong, but I doubt you can.

Did you read the rest of the post before you thought it necessary to tell me "gooba gabba" using someone else's words?

 

[FemaleInventionsLOL]

What is it with midwits and /saying that every person with a working vocabulary above 20 words has a thesaurus on hand?

I have to imagine you're the sort of dumbfuck who tried to write like this in the past, gave up after realizing that you weren't cut out for it, now polices the use of any "showy" words.

I wanted to like you because you're trying to popularize "hole", but I suspect you might be gay.



I have a feeling that anyone who quotes this laughable misinterpretation is a dribbling pussy. You (or anyone) are welcome to prove me wrong, but I doubt you can.

Did you read the rest of the post before you thought it necessary to tell me "gooba gabba" using someone else's words?

Using an esoteric (see what I did there?) synonym in place of a common word - especially on a frequent basis - is not good writing.

The purpose of sesquipedalian words (see what I did there?) is to reduce the number of words you use. It's not to use different words in place of perfectly good, concise ones.

Errr, sorry. It's not to propagate heterogeneous dialect to supplant linguistic propagation that satisfies the criteria for succinctness and clarity.

 

[Bronzehawkattack]

I have a feeling that anyone who quotes this laughable misinterpretation is a dribbling pussy. You (or anyone) are welcome to prove me wrong, but I doubt you can.

No one is misinterpreting anything you said boi.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Using an esoteric (see what I did there?) synonym in place of a common word - especially on a frequent basis - is not good writing.

The purpose of sesquipedalian words (see what I did there?) is to reduce the number of words you use. It's not to use different words in place of perfectly good, concise ones.

Errr, sorry. It's not to propagate heterogeneous dialect to supplant linguistic propagation that satisfies the criteria for succinctness and clarity.

Reducing word count is a use for non-standard diction, not the purpose.

You'd have it that everything is neatly communicable and expressed only to convey the barest meaning. Bugmen are taught to be scrupulous technical writers and come away thinking that words are redundant units to be pared down as much as possible to, somehow, communicate the same thing in a different way. There are a thousand ways to write "Redditors and everyone like them are poetically crippled", each with its own message.

That's a very bad parody of my style. Everything said in my post has its purpose and sounds well written as it is. You are using the wrong words, and clumsily ("look, I can do it too!" - no, you can't).

Propagate (worse, linguistic propagation)? Dialect?

In the first case, I think you wanted "employ" or "use" not "to circulate or spread". In the second case, something like " words" rather than something totally incoherent. In the third, "verbiage" rather than "dialect", which is a regional subtype of a language.

All I ask is that you don't derail my threads with gay shit. I've already had enough problems with this nuisance:

No one is misinterpreting anything you said boi.

You've never told me what I've said that has you mouthing off. I posted this thread so people could read a rant by a soyboy who's mad at the "new" Louis CK, not so some violently sodomized racepiller could derail it with personal grievances. I have given you every opportunity to offer a real criticism and you haven't.

 

[FemaleInventionsLOL]

Reducing word count is a use for non-standard diction, not the purpose.

You'd have it that everything is neatly communicable and expressed only to convey the barest meaning. Bugmen are taught to be scrupulous technical writers and come away thinking that words are redundant units to be pared down as much as possible to, somehow, communicate the same thing in a different way. There are a thousand ways to write "Redditors and everyone like them are poetically crippled", each with its own message.

That's a very bad parody of my style. Everything said in my post has its purpose and sounds well written as it is. You are using the wrong words, and clumsily ("look, I can do it too!" - no, you can't).

Propagate (worse, linguistic propagation)? Dialect?

In the first case, I think you wanted "employ" or "use" not "to circulate or spread". In the second case, something like " words" rather than something totally incoherent. In the third, "verbiage" rather than "dialect", which is a regional subtype of a language.

All I ask is that you don't derail my threads with gay shit. I've already had enough problems with this nuisance:



You've never told me what I've said that has you mouthing off. I posted this thread so people could read a rant by a soyboy who's mad at the "new" Louis CK, not so some violently sodomized racepiller could derail it with personal grievances. I have given you every opportunity to offer a real criticism and you haven't.

"Look at me, I missed my target audience, won't they be impressed?!"

The point of writing is to communicate ideas to your audience. If they don't know what you're talking about and have to use a dictionary on every other word, you are failing as a writer.

I see you Googled the words I used so that you could provide me the dictionary definitions of said words, since you didn't really know what they meant. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my imitation of your laughable, pseudo-intellectual, thesaurus junkie style of writing. "Propagate" means "to put out through a medium," which is what you're doing whenever you are writing something online. "Heterogeneous" means "variety," which means, "different." And the words you are using are dialect. Do you think the average English speaker talks like that?

 

[Deleted member 2798]

"Look at me, I missed my target audience, won't they be impressed?!"

The point of writing is to communicate ideas to your audience. If they don't know what you're talking about and have to use a dictionary on every other word, you are failing as a writer.

You don't know =/= they don't know. Don't assume that your incapacity to understand perfectly lucid writing extends to everyone here.

I see you Googled the words I used so that you could provide me the dictionary definitions of said words, since you didn't really know what they meant.

One second, "yuh speakegn at a level too HIGH FOR US! YOOSE MORE SIMPLE ONES!", next you claim I'm having to Google simple words like propagation, which is more often used in a sense overlapping with "procreation" and, in that light, an even stranger choice. I did not use the dictionary (along with "put down the thesaurus" = cope for linguistically-stunted brainlets), but here's what it furnished me just now:

1. breed specimens of (a plant, animal, etc.) by natural processes from the parent stock, (of a plant, animal, etc.) reproduce by natural processes.
2. spread and promote (an idea, theory, etc.) widely.
3. (with reference to motion, light, sound, etc.) transmit or be transmitted in a particular direction or through a medium.

Now here's the funny part: that third definition is so arcane (used pretty much exclusively by physicists, e.g. "the propagation of a sound wave through air") and your understanding of it so incorrect that I am fairly certain you used the dictionary to try to justify your sloppy abuse of the word:

"Propagate" means "to put out through a medium," which is what you're doing whenever you are writing something online.

It's not to propagate heterogeneous dialect to supplant linguistic propagation

This makes no sense. One doesn't "propagate" words in making phrasing decisions, rather "uses", "employs", "selects" them.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my imitation of your laughable, pseudo-intellectual, thesaurus junkie style of writing.

There was, in fact, even more wrong with it than what I pointed out, but those were rather more minor complaints in comparison to your grotesque mangling of meaning to prove that you "could do it if you wanted to too!"

"Heterogeneous" means "variety," which means, "different."

Truly it does, and you'll notice that I didn't voice issue with it despite it being a bit unwieldy for your purposes.

And the words you are using are dialect.

No they are not. Individuals do not possess dialect. British English is a dialect of English. Argentinian Spanish is a dialect of Spanish. You will learn this in any basic overview of linguistics( propagation).

Do you think the average English speaker talks like that?

No they don't, hence why it is not dialect. And at the core of it all anyways:

Who gives a shit?

Now, you're at least operating on a level a bit higher than then racepill ooks and, despite your digressions polluting a totally unrelated thread, I will continue to respond to you if it looks like you keep putting effort in. However, you should know that you seem like a hotheaded, fussy fag and I'd suggest that you collect your thoughts well before writing your rejoinder or, better yet, not writing it after you realize you're a distraction and wrong on top of it.

 

[Kent]

The point of writing is to communicate ideas to your audience.

Wait? so the guy I posted a picture of, is the OP and he is actually writing this malarkey(def: meaningless talk; nonsense)?

@OP

You are truly an awful writer and probably awful person. I thought the writer was intentionally being ridiculous; that's why I googled him/you. Your prose is so convoluted and out-of-touch that it doesn't even seem real. Its like you are trying to LARP as an angry teenager from the the time of Shakespeare.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Wait? so the guy I posted a picture of, is the P and he is actually writing this malarkey(def: meaningless talk; nonsense)?

@P

You are truly an awful writer and probably awful person. I thought the writer was intentionally being ridiculous; that's why I googled him/you. Your prose is so convoluted and out-of-touch that it doesn't even seem real. Its like you are trying to LARP as an angry teenager from the the time of Shakespeare.

Damn, going by your first post I thought that you understood the point of the thread:

I posted this thread so people could read a rant by a soyboy who's mad at the "new" Louis CK

Looks like you're just a run-of-the-mill brainlet.

I will go ahead and tell you (let me know if you need it phrased more simply) -

No, this is not me:

 

[FemaleInventionsLOL]

You don't know =/= they don't know. Don't assume that your incapacity to understand perfectly lucid writing extends to everyone here.

My vocabulary is in the top 1% of the population. I understood nearly every word you used and still thought your writing was atrocious. You are an imitation of every hack culture critic.

One second, "yuh speakegn at a level too HIGH FOR US! YOOSE MORE SIMPLE ONES!",

I said nothing of the sort. I said you're speaking at a pseudo-intellectual level using esoteric words.

Here's the thing you thesaurus junkies don't get: Using different words to express the same idea does not make the idea any more profound.

If some IT imbecile were to change, "and they wonder why they're incel," to, "and they ponder the mechanism for their interminable chastity," does it suddenly become smart?

Of course not.

next you claim I'm having to Google simple words like propagation, which is more often used in a sense overlapping with "procreation" and, in that light, an even stranger choice. I did not use the dictionary (along with "put down the thesaurus" = cope for linguistically-stunted brainlets), but here's what it furnished me just now:

1. breed specimens of (a plant, animal, etc.) by natural processes from the parent stock, (of a plant, animal, etc.) reproduce by natural processes.
2. spread and promote (an idea, theory, etc.) widely.
3. (with reference to motion, light, sound, etc.) transmit or be transmitted in a particular direction or through a medium.

Now here's the funny part: that third definition is so arcane (used pretty much exclusively by physicists, e.g. "the propagation of a sound wave through air") and your understanding of it so incorrect that I am fairly certain you used the dictionary to try to justify your sloppy abuse of the word:

No, the word, "propaganda," for example, is derived from the word, "propagate." "Propagate" is often used in reference to media.

This makes no sense. One doesn't "propagate" words in making phrasing decisions, rather "uses", "employs", "selects" them.

One who writes something on the internet disseminates (propagates) the words via a medium (internet).

There was, in fact, even more wrong with it than what I pointed out, but those were rather more minor complaints in comparison to your grotesque mangling of meaning to prove that you "could do it if you wanted to too!"

Just about anybody on this planet can do it. Running words through a thesaurus is not a difficult thing to do. Nobody is impressed with your synonyms. Well, maybe really stupid people are.

No they are not. Individuals do not possess dialect. British English is a dialect of English. Argentinian Spanish is a dialect of Spanish. You will learn this in any basic overview of linguistics( propagation).

Pseudo-intellectual American words and phrases are the dialect of pseudo-intellectual Americans. It differs from other variations of English. The rednecks aren't using it. The negroes aren't using it.

No they don't, hence why it is not dialect. And at the core of it all anyways:

Hence why it is dialect.

Ebonics, for example, is also a dialect.

Who gives a shit?

Now, you're at least operating on a level a bit higher than then racepill ooks and, despite your digressions polluting a totally unrelated thread, I will continue to respond to you if it looks like you keep putting effort in. However, you should know that you seem like a hotheaded, fussy fag and I'd suggest that you collect your thoughts well before writing your rejoinder or, better yet, not writing it after you realize you're a distraction and wrong on top of it.

Your shit on Louis CK can be summarized as follows: Louis CK was an SJW faggot, but after being exposed as a pervert and falling from grace, he has returned as a tame version of a shitlord. SJWs are freaking out despite the fact that his content is actually moderate/bland. Still, it's nice to see that one of the SJW icons has been forced off the reservation.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

My vocabulary is in the top 1% of the population.

Sure it is, pal. Who came to the determination - you?

You can't even use "propagate" correctly - we'll get to that again in a second - and I get the sense you're claiming this, likely counterfeit, distinction to put yourself above me and legitimize your stylistic complaints.

No one with a vocabulary, intellect, or sensibility that was anything better than dull and empty would get so worked up about this. Your complaint is not "your writing is not good/doesn't make sense", it is a general issue with verbose language.

I understood nearly every word you used and still thought your writing was atrocious. You are an imitation of every hack culture critic.

"I understood all the words, but I would never do anything like that myself. Oh gawd, the thought!"

I said nothing of the sort. I said you're speaking at a pseudo-intellectual level using esoteric words.

"Pseudo-intellectual" is a stock phrase for faggot Reddit normalnigs who feel threatened by dealing with people who act "cringy". You can do better.

Here's the thing you thesaurus junkies don't get: Using different words to express the same idea does not make the idea any more profound.

If some IT imbecile were to change, "and they wonder why they're incel," to, "and they ponder the mechanism for their interminable chastity," does it suddenly become smart?

Of course not.

I have already addressed all of this bugman-tier "brevity is the soul of wit" bullshit before this. I can forgive you ignoring it, but not circumventing it and going on to argue stupid points.

You'd have it that everything is neatly communicable and expressed only to convey the barest meaning. Bugmen are taught to be scrupulous technical writers and come away thinking that words are redundant units to be pared down as much as possible to, somehow, communicate the same thing in a different way. There are a thousand ways to write "Redditors and everyone like them are poetically crippled", each with its own message.

Ask yourself - why do "sesquipedalian" words exist in the first place? "So u can yoose less of um". Then they're not perfect "synonyms" are they?

No, the word, "propaganda," for example, is derived from the word, "propagate." "Propagate" is often used in reference to media.

One who writes something on the internet disseminates (propagates) the words via a medium (internet).

I'd drop this line if I were you. You made an obvious mistake and your rehabilitation isn't going to be found in etymology. "Infant" is originally Latin and means "unable (in) to speak (fant)". The English word "infantryman" was later derived by steps from the Latin "infant" (young, new) to denote a footsoldier lacking experience (yeah buddy, I looked this up; wish I didn't have to). Does this mean you can play around with roots to "prove" that soldiers are neonatal? Of course not.

Now, relating to "propagate", I figured you were using it in the sense in which you describe - the second sense - to spread ("disseminate"). The third definition related to the passage of an object through physical media, like in the example I gave you. That you went out of your way to use the word "medium", given by Google and relating to a different application of "propagate", tells me that you got flustered, looked the word up to cover your tracks, and still screwed up.

Now that that's out of the way, it is bizarre and fumbling to use it the way you did. "Propagating" words would refer to the act of getting them out there. People propagate things online like ideas, music, pamphlets (like SIEGE, by James Mason). No one speaks of "propagating" words. Moreover, what you, poorly impersonating me, were trying to communicate occurs antecedent to any question of "propagating" words on the "medium" of the internet - you are talking about word choice - selecting one term to "supplant" another (issues with this too, but how exhaustively do I have to cover this before you just admit that you're dumb?)

Just about anybody on this planet can do it. Running words through a thesaurus is not a difficult thing to do. Nobody is impressed with your synonyms. Well, maybe really stupid people are.

Take my word for it: I do not use a thesaurus.

"I knew all the words you were using, but you didn't and had to look them up in a thethaurus."

Come off it.

Pseudo-intellectual American words and phrases are the dialect of pseudo-intellectual Americans. It differs from other variations of English. The rednecks aren't using it. The negroes aren't using it.

Hence why it is dialect.

Ebonics, for example, is also a dialect.

Ebonics is a dialect because it has grammatical conventions and a unique vocabulary shared among a particular group of people. If you reeeeeeeally want to stretch, you can maybe call "literary English" a dialect, but then your issue is not only with me, but T.S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats, John Milton, Charles Dickens, etc. - fucking fuck fuck pseud-intellectuals do not have a "dialect". Get this straight before you try to LARP as an intellectual who "prefers" not to write like one.

Your shit on Louis CK can be summarized as follows: Louis CK was an SJW faggot, but after being exposed as a pervert and falling from grace, he has returned as a tame version of a shitlord. SJWs are freaking out despite the fact that his content is actually moderate/bland. Still, it's nice to see that one of the SJW icons has been forced off the reservation.

Moby Dick can be summarized as follows: "day wuz a nigga - dat whale - and another nigga Ahab and him wanted dat otha nigga. He got some dudes an day try to get dat boi, but day ain't."

If you are insensible to how language is used to produce effects beyond communicating the most basic and unremarkable nucleus of an idea, that's fine, but don't treat it as superior feature.

"Shitlord" and "SJW" are retarded meme-speak. Anyone in their right mind would be thanking me for not using them.

It is getting tedious arguing with your soulless "keep it simple, stupid" treatment of language as a utility. If you don't like it, don't defecate in my threads with expressions of your poor taste and I won't go into your dime-a-dozen threads and upbraid you for rambling and waxing trite about topics that have already been covered ad nauseam.

 

[FemaleInventionsLOL]

Sure it is, pal. Who came to the determination - you?

Yeah...really hard to figure that out.

It's about as obvious as the fact that holes find me unattractive.

You can't even use "propagate" correctly - we'll get to that again in a second - and I get the sense you're claiming this, likely counterfeit, distinction to put yourself above me and legitimize your stylistic complaints.

No one with a vocabulary, intellect, or sensibility that was anything better than dull and empty would get so worked up about this. Your complaint is not "your writing is not good/doesn't make sense", it is a general issue with verbose language.

And here I was thinking that word choice was part of writing.

"I understood all the words, but I would never do anything like that myself. Oh gawd, the thought!"

It's not only what I wouldn't do; it's what every other competent writer wouldn't do.

Also, "Oh gawd, the thought" is teetering dangerously close to IT-style snark.

"Pseudo-intellectual" is a stock phrase for faggot Reddit normalnigs who feel threatened by dealing with people who act "cringy". You can do better.

No, "r/iamverysmart" serves that purpose. "Pseudo-intellectual" is an appropriate response to any bloviating asshole.

I have already addressed all of this bugman-tier "brevity is the soul of wit" bullshit before this. I can forgive you ignoring it, but not circumventing it and going on to argue stupid points.

"Understanding your audience" is the soul of a good writer.

Ask yourself - why do "sesquipedalian" words exist in the first place? "So u can yoose less of um". Then they're not perfect "synonyms" are they?

Because not all words are created equal.

Some words are good. Some suck. Some were invented by idiots.

The ones that can say what it would otherwise take several words to say are a great linguistic invention.

The ones that are just complex synonyms for much simpler words are not.

I'd drop this line if I were you. You made an obvious mistake and your rehabilitation isn't going to be found in etymology. "Infant" is originally Latin and means "unable (in) to speak (fant)". The English word "infantryman" was later derived by steps from the Latin "infant" (young, new) to denote a footsoldier lacking experience (yeah buddy, I looked this up; wish I didn't have to). Does this mean you can play around with roots to "prove" that soldiers are neonatal? Of course not.

Now, relating to "propagate", I figured you were using it in the sense in which you describe - the second sense - to spread ("disseminate"). The third definition related to the passage of an object through physical media, like in the example I gave you. That you went out of your way to use the word "medium", given by Google and relating to a different application of "propagate", tells me that you got flustered, looked the word up to cover your tracks, and still screwed up.

Now that that's out of the way, it is bizarre and fumbling to use it the way you did. "Propagating" words would refer to the act of getting them out there. People propagate things online like ideas, music, pamphlets (like SIEGE, by James Mason). No one speaks of "propagating" words. Moreover, what you, poorly impersonating me, were trying to communicate occurs antecedent to any question of "propagating" words on the "medium" of the internet - you are talking about word choice - selecting one term to "supplant" another (issues with this too, but how exhaustively do I have to cover this before you just admit that you're dumb?)

What do you think written ideas are composed of? Not words?

And the fact that it's "bizarre and fumbling" is the fucking point. That's what shitty writers like you are doing. You're trying to reinvent the wheel. You're writing "around" what it is you're trying to express because you think it makes you sound more intelligent.

And here's another hint: If you can't express an idea in plain language without it sounding dull or corny, the idea you're trying to express isn't what you should be saying.

"Moreover, what you, poorly impersonating me, were trying to communicate occurs antecedent to any question of "propagating" words on the "medium" of the internet - you are talking about word choice - selecting one term to "supplant" another"

I have read this sentence over and over and I can not figure out what you are trying to say.

I'll just go back to what I wrote and break it down:

Original Sentence: It's not to use different words in place of perfectly good, concise ones.

Shitty Replacement Sentence: It's not to propagate heterogeneous dialect to supplant linguistic propagation that satisfies the criteria for succinctness and clarity.


Propagate heterogeneous dialect: Put out (via a medium) a variety of words from a regional language
To supplant: To replace
Linguistic propagation: Putting out words
That satisfies the criteria for: That are
Succinctness and clarity: Concise.

You seem to be saying it's a "bad impression" because it's not a 1:1 synonym replacement sentence, but I wasn't trying to do it that way. I was trying to convey the same idea in the clunkiest way possible. Had I used an actual thesaurus to make every word perfectly interchangeable, the result wouldn't have been as pretentious as I wanted.

Take my word for it: I do not use a thesaurus.

"I knew all the words you were using, but you didn't and had to look them up in a thethaurus."

Come off it.

I don't give a shit whether you used a thesaurus or not. In my case, I just sat there thinking of verbose ways to reword that very simple sentence to still convey its general meaning.

Ebonics is a dialect because it has grammatical conventions and a unique vocabulary shared among a particular group of people. If you reeeeeeeally want to stretch, you can maybe call "literary English" a dialect, but then your issue is not only with me, but T.S. Eliot, W.B. Yeats, John Milton, Charles Dickens, etc. - fucking fuck fuck pseud-intellectuals do not have a "dialect". Get this straight before you try to LARP as an intellectual who "prefers" not to write like one.

Pseudo-intellectual critics also have a unique vocabulary. Your writing epitomizes it. That's why Kent confused you with that guy on Twitter.

And that's why most Americans would have no clue what half the words you wrote mean.

Moby Dick can be summarized as follows: "day wuz a nigga - dat whale - and another nigga Ahab and him wanted dat otha nigga. He got some dudes an day try to get dat boi, but day ain't."

Obviously, you would want to use more formal writing than that because that would also miss your target audience (unless you're in Detroit).

But there's a difference between good and bad formal writing.

You can describe Moby Dick without making every other word something that about 5 people know the meaning of.

If you are insensible to how language is used to produce effects beyond communicating the most basic and unremarkable nucleus of an idea, that's fine, but don't treat it as superior feature.

The only effect vocabulary like yours produces is eye-rolling, thoughts of, "what a pretentious dipshit," and clicks of the "back" button.

"Shitlord" and "SJW" are retarded meme-speak. Anyone in their right mind would be thanking me for not using them.

It is getting tedious arguing with your soulless "keep it simple, stupid" treatment of language as a utility. If you don't like it, don't defecate in my threads with expressions of your poor taste and I won't go into your dime-a-dozen threads and upbraid you for rambling and waxing trite about topics that have already been covered ad nauseam.

Then don't use them. Use better words that most people actually know the meaning of.

And as far as I know, the is the first thread of yours I have "defecated" in. If you continue to write in this style, I just won't read it. I have no reason to address this again.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Yeah...really hard to figure that out.

It's about as obvious as the fact that holes find me unattractive.

Might not be so obvious. I don't see it from where I'm standing.

And here I was thinking that word choice was part of writing.

teetering dangerously close to IT-style snark.

Of course it is. Again, you seem to be tiptoeing around the points I've raised about most "synonyms" not being semantically redundant. Moreover, there's the sound of the word to consider, the impressions it produces (you can't calculate the change of "meaning" from expression to impression, but that does not stand in the way of expression asserting itself), how it fits alongside its neighbors, the connotations it has. Writing is more than choosing the easiest way to vomit out half-formed and crude ideas.

It's not only what I wouldn't do; it's what every other competent writer wouldn't do.

I get the sense you're not especially familiar with "competent writing" outside of mercantile or technical contexts. There, yeah, some kind of convention and concision is expected. But it is boring and has no place in fencing in one's own expression. Go beyond high-flown English and look at something like Finnegan's Wake or J.R. Why were those books written the way they were?

Also, "Oh gawd, the thought" is teetering dangerously close to IT-style snark.

Nah, perfectly fitting for the kind of finicky dismissal you've made. Sounds like an old matron clutching her pearls. "I wouldn't be caught dead!"

No, "r/iamverysmart" serves that purpose. "Pseudo-intellectual" is an appropriate response to any bloviating asshole.

No, not really. Head over to that /sub and I have a feeling you'll see "pseudo-intellectual" bandied about more than even "toxic". "Asshole" is the scatological gender-race-and-orientation-neutral Redditor pejorative of choice too, nice touch.

Because not all words are created equal.

Some words are good. Some suck. Some were invented by idiots.

The ones that can say what it would otherwise take several words to say are a great linguistic invention.

The ones that are just complex synonyms for much simpler words are not.

Yeah, a straight-shooter like you needs to take the torch to the English lexicon. So many "useless" words in need of removal.

What do you think written ideas are composed of? Not words?

And the fact that it's "bizarre and fumbling" is the fucking point. That's what shitty writers like you are doing. You're trying to reinvent the wheel. You're writing "around" what it is you're trying to express because you think it makes you sound more intelligent.

And here's another hint: If you can't express an idea in plain language without it sounding dull or corny, the idea you're trying to express isn't what you should be saying.

"Moreover, what you, poorly impersonating me, were trying to communicate occurs antecedent to any question of "propagating" words on the "medium" of the internet - you are talking about word choice - selecting one term to "supplant" another"

I have read this sentence over and over and I can not figure out what you are trying to say.

I'll just go back to what I wrote and break it down:

Original Sentence: It's not to use different words in place of perfectly good, concise ones.

Shitty Replacement Sentence: It's not to propagate heterogeneous dialect to supplant linguistic propagation that satisfies the criteria for succinctness and clarity.


Propagate heterogeneous dialect: Put out (via a medium) a variety of words from a regional language
To supplant: To replace
Linguistic propagation: Putting out words
That satisfies the criteria for: That are
Succinctness and clarity: Concise.

You seem to be saying it's a "bad impression" because it's not a 1:1 synonym replacement sentence, but I wasn't trying to do it that way. I was trying to convey the same idea in the clunkiest way possible. Had I used an actual thesaurus to make every word perfectly interchangeable, the result wouldn't have been as pretentious as I wanted.

Writing around is a much a part of writing as writing on. Do you think the interstices and branches of communication are without significance? Why doesn't everyone write in the exact same way? Why are there styles distinct to each writer (yes, even you)?

This is how I write. This is the organization and choice of words that comes most naturally in trying to get across what I want to. Again, agonizing over impressions on a anonymous forum is fruitless. I am concerned with expressing. You might not like it, others do, some of them having posted in this very thread. In all this talk of audiences, you seem to think my audience is you and you alone.

What I wrote makes perfect sense:

"Moreover, what you, poorly impersonating me, were trying to communicate occurs antecedent to any question of "propagating" words on the "medium" of the internet - you are talking about word choice - selecting one term to "supplant" another"

These can be troublesome ideas to wrestle into life, especially here where half of the excerpt concerns your phrases, which are lacking in clarity for the reasons I elaborated above.

Here:

You were imitating me using wording that was not only inept, but also semantically nonsensical. You meant to talk about my choice of words behind this patchy and confused veil of snark, ended up dealing with the simple act of writing itself. This is a bad and dishonest characterization of my writing, which you've repeatedly emphasized that you understand in spite of your complaints about "big words" - it is therefore clear to you and everyone else who posted in here (thanks, sorry about what happened) dodging around uppity ethnicopers and your very own useless "contribution".

It was a bad impression because my meaning was clear and the words I used were woven fluidly into a narrative arc. If you wanted to make fun of the use of "too many" polysyllabic words, yeah, go ahead and tack them on as much as you want. I still expect you to use them correctly, as I did.

Pseudo-intellectual critics also have a unique vocabulary. Your writing epitomizes it. That's why Kent confused you with that guy on Twitter.

He got confused because he initially took issue with the soyboy's writing, just like I did and like I intended for people to discuss. After seeing you complain about my writing, he made the mistake of assuming I must have written the soyscreed. The styles are totally distinct, the tones completely opposite (histrionic versus detached). There is no "pseudo-intellectual dialect".

What you are trying to point out are styles. Nabokov did not write in Nabokovian "dialect". You can claim that my own style has a theudo-intellectual character, but I'd disagree.

And that's why most Americans would have no clue what half the words you wrote mean.

Why does this matter? You must not pick up books very often huh?

Obviously, you would want to use more formal writing than that because that would also miss your target audience (unless you're in Detroit).

But there's a difference between good and bad formal writing.

You can describe Moby Dick without making every other word something that about 5 people know the meaning of.

My "target audience" is a large and heterogeneous forum composed of people with a wide range of tastes. I write how I write, some will be inclined to read, some won't. I don't go into "It's over girl liek Chad" threads and demand greater depth.

You can describe Moby Dick simply but you'll lose most of its significance. There's a reason that hermeneutics is a profession and not an idle hobby of making summaries. There's no reason to vulgarize when Melville was no stranger to bombast himself and packed the novel full of intricate trivia about whaling.

The only effect vocabulary like yours produces is eye-rolling, thoughts of, "what a pretentious dipshit," and clicks of the "back" button.

Then don't use them. Use better words that most people actually know the meaning of.

There are no "better" words, only suitable or not. Again, all of these words exist for a reason. They are not thitty fucking garbage words. They are not mistakes. They are not neologisms in the provenance of a single man.

And as far as I know, the is the first thread of yours I have "defecated" in. If you continue to write in this style, I just won't read it. I have no reason to address this again.

Yeah, still one too many.

 

[Deleted member 9229]

@Ledgemund, do you believe everyone thats not at least 8/10 is guaranteed incel OR you believe you are are guaranteed to have sex when 8/10?

 

[Deleted member 2798]

you are are guaranteed to have sex when 8/10

 

[Deleted member 9229]

So you believe a 7/10 guy can be incel? are you dumb? why choose 8 why such a random number? fact is the averege man 5/10 will get laid more than once in his lifetime. Sub4 Incels are FUCKED. you sub8 theorists need to get the fuck out of here

 

[Deleted member 2798]

So you believe a 7/10 guy can be incel? are you dumb? why choose 8 why such a random number? fact is the averege man 5/10 will get laid more than once in his lifetime. Sub4 Incels are FUCKED. you sub8 theorists need to get the fuck out of here

This too has nothing to do with the thread, but I assumed your question was in good faith.

Did you read the answer I gave you - in your own words on top of it? Or are you just looking to ook regardless of the answer?

Yes, "a 7/10 guy" can be incel. Not will be. There are myriad issues that might prevent a person from integrating into society, some of which have convenient, named etiologies (autism, schizophrenia, severe OCD, etc.), some which defy simple explanation. "8" because people, all of whom have different scales, insist on using ratings - I use it to indicate approximately 3-5% of the male population. The "average man" is almost perfectly neurotypical and is still a cryptic incel waiting for the right conditions to lose his footing in the world.

What it comes to: 8/10 looks fulfill every requirement to have foids initiate with you and overlook just about every flaw one could have outside of catatonia or mental retardation. 8/10 looks allow you to coast by on looks alone. Every man with sub-8 looks is a potential incel if he doesn't fulfill whatever requirements are presented by a contingent social order.

I naïvely thought you might have gotten less gay by the benign nature of your first post. I have patiently explained this concept to you over and over again only to be met with "gooba gabba low IQ" and I'm the one who's dumb?

I don't really post anymore. I made this rare thread because I figured that people like @Ritalincel would want to see it, not for some burnt crypussy to treat as his personal sheet of complaints. What does "Sub-8 Law" have to do with Louis CK?

 

[Ritalincel]

I don't really post anymore. I made this rare thread because I figured that people like @Ritalincel would want to see it, not for some burnt crypussy to treat as his personal sheet of complaints. What does "Sub-8 Law" have to do with Louis CK?

loled thx

 

[Deleted member 9229]

This too has nothing to do with the thread, but I assumed your question was in good faith.

Did you read the answer I gave you - in your own words on top of it? Or are you just looking to ook regardless of the answer?

Yes, "a 7/10 guy" can be incel. Not will be. There are myriad issues that might prevent a person from integrating into society, some of which have convenient, named etiologies (autism, schizophrenia, severe OCD, etc.), some which defy simple explanation. "8" because people, all of whom have different scales, insist on using ratings - I use it to indicate approximately 3-5% of the male population. The "average man" is almost perfectly neurotypical and is still a cryptic incel waiting for the right conditions to lose his footing in the world.

What it comes to: 8/10 looks fulfill every requirement to have foids initiate with you and overlook just about every flaw one could have outside of catatonia or mental retardation. 8/10 looks allow you to coast by on looks alone. Every man with sub-8 looks is a potential incel if he doesn't fulfill whatever requirements are presented by a contingent social order.

I naïvely thought you might have gotten less gay by the benign nature of your first post. I have patiently explained this concept to you over and over again only to be met with "gooba gabba low IQ" and I'm the one who's dumb?

I don't really post anymore. I made this rare thread because I figured that people like @Ritalincel would want to see it, not for some burnt crypussy to treat as his personal sheet of complaints. What does "Sub-8 Law" have to do with Louis CK?

My low IQ ass trying to keep up with what your saying

 

[Deleted member 2798]

My low IQ ass trying to keep up with what your saying View attachment 77666

I'm not trying to be a cunt or anything, but you have to consider what I've been dealing with in this thread. I make about 1 every 2 months and now it looks like have to beat back everyone with an irrelevant bone to pick. Worse yet when I'm reviewing things I've already explained several times months ago.

I'll answer what you need answered, but I'm going to match or exceed whatever tone is used with me.

 

[Deleted member 9229]

I'm not trying to be a cunt or anything, but you have to consider what I've been dealing with in this thread. I make about 1 every 2 months and now it looks like have to beat back everyone with an irrelevant bone to pick. Worse yet when I'm reviewing things I've already explained several times months ago.

I'll answer what you need answered, but I'm going to match or exceed whatever tone is used with me.

im too dumb to type long ass paragraphs to respond, I just replied back to pick a bone for old times sake tbh. the 8/10 guarnteed sex is not too far fetched in my opinion. i always thought you meant sub8=death sentence. so its all good

 

[Redpill Robert]

Jewy C(uc)K, that's genius