this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
708 points (89.4% liked)

memes

18427 readers
2606 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

people use the newer, less common meaning until it becomes more common

And we can work to stop it from becoming more common by nipping it in the bud.

then you'd just be on the losing side of the battle historically

At least you turned up to the fight.

But language is a shared medium

Which is why change should be gradual and limited, otherwise two people who use that language are unable to clearly communicate.

Clear communication is so Ohio, I've got rizz.

Or something. I'm too old to make this joke.

[–] bampop@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

You sound like you consider all linguistic evolution to be a bad thing. I'm not saying there shouldn't be opposition to change, indeed opposition helps to filter out pointless change, while worthwhile change will tend to overcome that opposition. So go ahead and be that opposition if you will, but it just seems like a limited perspective to me.

It reminds me of my English teachers at school who impressed upon me that it's incorrect to use the pronouns "they/them" in a singular, non-gender-specific context. So you had to go with the traditional but sexist "he" or an awkwardly pseudo-random distribution of "he" and "she", despite the fact that "they" was in common use colloquially. Perhaps my teachers' fervent opposition was only fueled by the fact that it was a language problem which popular usage had already solved. They were fighting a valiant rearguard action against common sense, and I'm glad they lost.

[–] mechanismatic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But, you're just one person. You won't be present for 99.9999%+ of newer usages of terms, so you'll be impotent to effect much change on the matter. With the level of illiteracy and the anti-intellectualism that seems rampant these days, even having a widely read column on a popular platform might be insufficient to turn such a tide. Maybe at best you'd be a screenwriter for a Hollywood blockbuster that a decent portion of the population watches and you could hope for the best, but even that seems weak considering we collectively don't even remember movie lines accurately ten or twenty years later.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But, together we're 2 people. And we can recruit more to the army.

[–] mechanismatic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

“I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.”