this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
683 points (93.6% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9748 readers
1306 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm curious, are you a native English speaker? In colloquial English the term "branded" is almost never referred to the second point in the Webster dictionary. The term originates from a particular context and the etymology derives from germanic "to burn". I'm not doing the semantic bullshit game that already happened in this thread. No one uses "brand" colloquially for printed form. I suspect you know this.
Oh fuck right off. It has a way stronger connotation in colloquial English to be any other definition except an actual burning hot iron.
IF we were having this conversation 150 years ago, it would be different.
We're not.
https://www.playphrase.me/#/search?q=Branded
What sort of a percentage of those is referring to an actual brand and isn't from a piece of media depicting something before 1900's?
How about here?
https://edition.cnn.com/search?q=Branded&from=0&size=10&page=1&sort=relevance&types=article§ion=
Here?
https://apnews.com/article/wawa-tumbler-recall-metal-straw-injuries-0225d1ec580c880d3f1aef199e6580ca
https://apnews.com/search?q=%22branded%22&s=0
https://apnews.com/search?q=%22branded+people%22&s=0
Searching for "branded people" and the first story to come up is
Not a native speaker, are ya?
Not to mention which, you still haven't addressed the fact that demanding such linguistic prescription is wrong in general, not to mention in journalistic practice where standards are different.
See you're trying to challenge linguistics when you have an understanding that's probably from your lessons at whatever public school, because the teachers at those tend to be extremely prescriptive. Something which modern linguistics definitely wouldn't agree with to that extent at least, and definitely not in the context of headlines, and definitely not in the context of this specific word, which actually has this definition as well.
(Also, you're avoiding admitting Israel is committing crimes against humanity. Probably because you're a filtht little genocide denier.)
You keep deferring whenever your childish garbage is shown to be moronic.
Isn't it just? Had you actually read the article I linked in the first place, your asinine ego wouldn't be in your way to admit how wrong you are. But you're not interested in actual linguistics. You don't care about it and you're not versed in it, which is apparent from you pushing views that high-schoolers might have, because you've just never read anything about linguistics beyond your lessons on that level. I've said it several times. Applying such a prescriptive criteria to journalistic headlines is beyond inane. Literally a 12-year old in my country would be expected to understand what I've been repeating to you several times now. So you've definitely not stepped a foot anywhere near a university anytime in your life.
You're stomping your foot, crying "NO, 'BRAND' ONLY HAS ONE SINGLE MEANING. ONE SINGLE ONE. THAT'S HOW LANGUAGE WORKS. WAA-WAA!"*.
You desperately need your exaggerated bullshit to be right, but since you've exaggerated and generalised, it's obviously not, which makes you ashamed, which makes you even more convicted to die on this hill on that you don't understand the first thing about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description
https://spcollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=254319&p=1695321
https://newslit.org/educators/resources/seven-standards-quality-journalism/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216608002798
Cry all you want, but the journalist has done nothing wrong, and unlike you claim, people in this thread definitely aren't assuming "physical mutilation" when they read "brand". You can cry and cry and cry all day, it won't make your sixth grade approach to philology any better, kiddo. :D
I recommend you stick to some safe bubble or echo chamber from now on.
All right Noam Chomsky. I think you shit your diaper again. Maybe you should call your caretaker to come change it. Your expertise on linguistics is on par with Joe Rogan. No one here is talking about linguistic purity dumbass. As native English speakers were just pointing out how the expression is used colloquially, which I know is a difficult concept for you to grasp.
I have no interest in moronic strawmen about linguistic purity since you are unable to hold more than one thought in your head at the same time without having to call someone a filthy little genocide denier
Go back to Tumblr or something.
You're saying everyone in the comments is interpreting this headline as prescriptively as you pretend it is meant. Us using the same bar of prescriptiveness for your statement means you mean literally every single person is interpreting it as literal physical branding using a hot iron.
That's a ridiculous statement, and just me disagreeing with you would make it incorrect, and several other people have tried explaining this to you. You refuse to admit that there's such a thing as descriptive language or that "branding" can be used descriptively even if it lacked a meaning of a printed mark, which it does not.
"Moronic strawmen about linguistic purity"
You're the one making that moronic strawman though. You're denying the existence of descriptive language. This is what I meant earlier. You don't even understand what that word means, so you don't understand you're doing it, which makes this rather hilarious, as your linguistic understanding is on the level of a 16-year old.
You're trying to say the article is essentially propaganda against Israel. It's not. To say Israel is branding people in this context is well within linguistic and journalistic standards, despite you not understanding what those standards are, even when half a dozen people are trying to explain them to you.
See the usage going down steadily throughout the 1900's, until there's a marked uptick in the 80's, when the word resurfaced with a new context, that is currently the most colloquially used (brand as in trademark). That usage has lead to a semantic shift of the word, making it lose it's connotation of "physical mutilation with a hot iron" as you can see from for example the playphrase.me link despite you pretending that all of the examples I used referred to objects instead of people. Is Candyman an object or a person, hmm? What about "I"? "They"? Hell, even the clip from a show that's depicting a scene in the wild west, where there was actual branding, the quote isn't referring to "branding" via a hot iron, but in the sense that it is most commonly used. Here in the headline of our article it just happens to overlap with making a physical mark on the people, which also fits the definition of "brand".
You don't understand linguistic or journalistic standards. You're wrong in your childish assertions, but you'll never be able to accept that.
Oh so you don't believe in the prescriptive view you're so passionately arguing for, and instead use descriptive language, like a normal person, just like I've been arguing the headline is doing as well? Quelle surprise.
Of course not literally half a dozen people. Why on Earth would you think I meant literally what I wrote? It's not like you do, either, so why are you applying this linguistic standard to me (and the headline) while ignoring it whenever something you say conflict with it? Is it perhaps because you don't even recognise the thing I'm talking about, because your understanding of linguistics is on the level of a highschooler?
I'll bet a lot of money I've been speaking English longer than you and have a better understanding of it, buddy. (Because I'm not really guessing anything, it's all evident from the thread.)
Integrity? No no. We're talking about how biased headlines are, aren't we? Not why they're biased, but whether they are or not. Having trouble keeping up?
You still won't acknowledge that "branding" hasn't had the connotation "burning hot iron" as it's strongest connotation since the early 1900's, which I've been saying for several times now. I've also shown you clear examples of "branding" being used to refer to people. Why do you keep ignoring half the shit that's said to you? (This is a rhetorical question. I know why. Because I'm right in your understanding of philology, but you can't just go "lol I was faking knowing about this shit, my bad".)
This is literally what I challenged, but you just keep moving your goalposts instead of admitting how silly (and wrong) it was to say such a thing.
I'm not ignoring anything. A couple cherry picked examples don't make your point. You also conflate 'product branding' with the way it's invoked when talking about people. Of course this is not exclusive and can be taken also as metaphorical. Plenty of others in this thread have pointed out this ambiguity. Just that fact should raise some flags to you.
"filthy little genocide denier". Truly living up to the lemmy meme here haha. I love it.
They're literally random, so that kinda conflicts with the whole "cherry-picked", don't you think?
Then there's the Ngram viewer, which has literally millions of books in it. Then there's the fact that no-one uses language in the prescriptive way you've demanded that the headline was written & interpreted it.
Almost as if you've deluded yourself the whole time into thinking that "everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation".
You said that. You can't take it back, so you're trying to justify it with "well obviously that's not what I literally meant" while arguing that a news headline is to be interpreted not just literally, but in a singular way, and a singular way you've chosen, that you say everyone understands it in that context (despite literally no-one in the whole fucking thread having interpreted it like that). Then when people prove to you that first off language isn't used as prescriptively as that (ie you made an argument concerning linguistic purity, not understanding how silly it is), and secondly that "brand" actually has printed in the definition, you kicked well off and now you're just having a tantrum.
Do you take these words you said back?
"filthy little genocide denier"
Dude. The other comment pointing out the ambiguity in the headline has over 60 upvotes. Plenty of comments are pointing out the physical implication. Don't pretend I'm a special case here because you can invoke philology. A couple cherry picked examples are still just a couple examples. In order to have a random pool you need a much larger sample lol.
Stop acting so high and virtuous just because you align with the Palestinian cause. We're all an team Palestine in this thread.
Still moving the goalposts. You just literally can not admit to being wrong. Must be hard, living like that. And it makes for an absolutely disgusting personality.
I didn't cherrypick anything. None of the examples that organically come up from that site which has millions of clips through searching for the terms are cherrypicked. It's literally the opposite of cherrypicking. :D Unlike your "oh but there's another guy also trying to discredit this article criticising Israel and that has upvotes", so it must mean that my asinine interpretation was correct".
People like you asserting that "everyone is interpreting it in this way I just made up that doesn't conform to colloqual English, linguistic descriptivism or journalistic standards" doesn't mean that it's happening. I can find a bunch of Flat Earthers. Does that make the Earth flat? You too know you've been disingenuous in your rhetoric, but you just won't be able to admit it.
You said:
Which was wrong. And now you're desperately using the view of descriptivists while defending your argument about the article allegedly being written by someone who's a linguistic prescriptivist. (Have you still even bothered to read up on those to the point that you'd finally understand what the terms mean?)
So the other comment pointing out the ambiguity in the headline with 60 upvotes…is just a coincidence? Can you address this? No goalposts were moved. We’re still on the same asinine topic. Can you specify which post was moved? Be specific.
If you want to provide a random pool then you’ll need a larger sample size regardless of how “organically” they sprouted. That’s how you avoid false positives lol.
“Filthy little genocide denier” Haha rereading this makes me laugh each time. I’m thinking of hobbits now.
So the randomly picked samples from millions of clips that all support my point about how "brand" is used — even in the context of a scene that is even set in the wild west... is just a coincidence?
So you stand behind this comment:
?
Why do you feel the need to specify "first dictionary definition" there? Couldn't have anything to do with you not understanding that definitions in dictionaries don't go by order of "most used", and someone having noted to you before that comment that "printed mark" is also a definition of "brand"?
Clearly you're not correct there. Not everyone is saying that. You're demanding that the headline is to be interpreted literally, and only in one single way that you've chosen (actually cherry-picked from a list of definitions that are being actively used, as I have demonstrated several times from databases which have millions and millions of entries). Yet you also insist that this literal interpretation can't be use for the comment in which you demand that the headline is interpreted purely prescriptively.
You see people claiming that "everyone is interpreting it in this way" doesn't mean that it's true that they are. You've failed to show anyone interpreting it like that. You've shown that people upvoted a comment asserting that is happening. That's like saying you've proved the Earth to be Flat because you can point to a comment with upvotes claiming it's Flat.
See you being too lazy and not spending five minutes to learn what "prescriptive" means that you've written these comments all day not realising how ironic it is to anyone with a basic understanding of philology. :D I've repeated myself about a dozen times, yet you just won't believe you can be wrong, so you haven't even bothered to skim the articles I've linked, meaning you continue this ironic garbage. Which I thank you for, because I'm having a rather empty evening otherwise, so repeating this to you until you get it is something very pleasant to do. :)
Filthy little Hobbits we are, aren't we? Little filthy genocide deniers.
I give up man. You're right. No one else in this thread saw the title as ambiguous. Woopsie. My bad. I how I could have come to that conclusion.... Sorry, I'm just a filthy little genocide apologist. What do I know
So you stand behind this comment:
?
You said it and you meant it and you're now definitely not moving any goalposts in regards to it?
All you had to do was to actually read the link I linked to you in the first comment I made, and you would've got this, and you could've avoided this tantrum you're having. It's a weird hill to die on, man.
So you said a thing you can't back up and now you're ignoring it while still obsessively replying, because you can't let it go.
It's a really weird hill to die on, man.
You said "Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation."
You can't now walk back that very specific statement, and you can't defend it either, but you're not a big enough person to admit that you said something that wasn't right. You know that I know that you know that I know that you didn't read the articles about linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism, because if you had even skimmed them, you'd have understood the issue, and you definitely wouldn't have defended your own statement about demanding 'the headline is prescriptive' as descriptive.
It's okay. You have to make these mistakes to learn from them.
I've addressed your "but other people have asserted the same bullshit I have, so the bullshit must be true!" quite a few times now.
See you're walking back this statement you made. Now you're trying to say "no, I didn't say that everyone is literally using that definition, I only said that some others have pointed out the ambiguity"?
"To imply a good majority"
Oh... so... people use figures of speech when they use language, instead of meaning the literal meaning of the words they're using? Oh geez. I wonder if there's like any discipline which studies how language is used.
I've not at any point claimed that there aren't people who may have perceived it as a literal burning iron. I'm noting that there isn't a single one in this thread in which you claim that EVERYONE is using "the LITERAL and FIRST dictionary definition". Literally everyone should be interpreting it as literal branding. There's not a single comment saying so. Definitely not everyone or even a "good majority". Only yours saying that every other comment is doing that, despite everyone being able to read the other comments, like mine, which are pointing out that that's not how language or journalistic headlines work.
It's not biased, but you're rather adamant it is, yet can't even stand behind your words, but also can't admit that were wrong or that you can't stand behind them.
Just like I said, you're now trying to defend a statement where you assert that the headline is purely prescriptive, as a statement that was purely descriptive. You could avoid all this by reading wikipedia for a few minutes, but instead you keep coming back here to humiliate yourself more and more. It's hilarious.
None of what we are talking about has anything to do with linguistic description. I am not making any prescriptive claims about how the phrase burning ought to be used when describing the practice on humans. We are discussing the colloquial ambiguity in how the term is employed in the headline. We are not discussing grammar.
colloquialism
There is enough ambiguity that plenty of users have brought it up in this thread. You can be dismissive and handwave it away as "others falling for the same bullshit" but it's irrelevant. There are enough of us that grew up speaking English that when we refer to act of branding humans the implication is physical scarification and not product branding which is a marketing term. For those of us that grew up speaking English this is clear as day. It has nothing to do with prescriptive language or grammatic rules as discussed in your philology. Also, at no point did any of this justify your pathetic attack with "filthy little genocide denier". Do better.
Oh, so you did go and spend a few minutes on Wiki, good, that's a start. See you are making prescriptive claims as to how you think people have interpreted it, even when faced with people saying "no, that's definitely not how I interpreted it", and afterwards you even argue to them that they can't have interpreted "branding" as a printed mark, since that's not in it's definition. Then someone shows you it is in the definition, and you still maintain your prescriptive claim.
You literally write it out right there.
Now you've walked back that very prescriptive statement about how you pretend people have definitely interpreted this headline from explicitly stating that EVERYONE is doing something to "imply a good majority". But there is no "good majority". People upvoting a comment claiming something doesn't make that claim any more true, you understand that.
You linking "colloquialism" is peak irony as well. See if you actually understood the subject, you'd realise how silly the things you claim are. But you don't, so you don't realise it, so you keep doing it. :D What does colloquial language have to do with this? Please? Do make an argument, instead of your pseudointelligent babbling about "colloquial ambiguity". This is about you having EXPLICITLY stated that EVERYONE in this thread is using the "literal and first dictionary definition". Even being charitable to you... where is that "good majority assuming the literal and first dictionary definition"? And.. which dictionary? Wouldn't be the only one you checked when someone linked it to you, would it? Because dictionaries don't actually always put definitions in the same order, you see. :F
You're still pretending that everyone is applying the insane prescriptive standard you hold to this word, when native speakers most certainly don't. I've also linked you a million resources showing the actual usage of the term. From movies, shows, books and news articles. Most usages are either discussing a trademark or the act of being "branded" figuratively. As in all these examples that they use here https://www.playphrase.me/#/search?q=branded&language=en and once more, those examples are not cherry-picked, unlike you claimed so many times. They're literally randomly picked examples. That's the very opposite of cherry-picking, ie selecting. I won't argue that no-one uses "branding" to refer to hot irons (or cold ones, as it happens, as cryo-branding is a thing as well nowadays, better scars), but I am arguing that your bullshit statement about "Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation" being bullshit, because there's even a clear fucking illustration of someone having marker on their face. So please show these "everyones" using this definition which means permanent physical mutilation. Go ahead. I'll wait right here. You know, unless you want to just admit that you making a statement you knew to be bullshit?
You simply made a statement you can't back up so you're having to change it and move the goalposts of this debate. "Do better."