Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
perkele
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by perkele » Tue May 29, 2018 9:18 pm

Not sure if maybe better suited for the Lounge, but it's slightly political.

From Twitter:
Tim Pool wrote:The words "mansplain" and "manspread" are hate speech yet I see so many people who oppose hate speech using these words.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Dictionary.com wrote:Well, actually, mansplaining refers to the practice of a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner. #ItsNotVeryNice

dictionary.com/browse/mansplain
Tim Pool wrote:Thank you Dictionary.com for explaining what mansplain means. Its language that is meant to deride the behavior of men. Please see the definition of hate speech on your own website.

dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech
No interest in discussing this, actually. Just wanted to mention, since Dictionary.com came up elsewhere, why I think it's run by idiots and should not be trusted as an authority on language or anything.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by retrofuturist » Tue May 29, 2018 9:24 pm

Greetings perkele,

There's a certain self-assuredness in certain quarters that the frame of reference that they apply to the world is unquestioningly correct.

Satipatthana teaches us that the frame of reference applied fundamentally shapes our experience of things. To not recognize that, and to take the frame of reference as granted, or as absolute, is in an intellectual shortcoming. It is, as you say, "dumb and dishonest".

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4423
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Sam Vara » Tue May 29, 2018 10:24 pm

Further to Paul's reply, it might be worth noting that the Buddha's view of language appears to be conventionalist. He rejected the bramins' idea that words were unchanging representations of timeless realities, and substituted instead a view of process. If reality consists of processes, then no language could ultimately and definitively represent other aspects of our world. As Noa Ronkin says,
Although language is a constant feature of our experience, we are normally unaware of the paradox in the cognitive process: to become knowable all the incoming sensory data must be verbally differentiated, but as such they are mere constructions, mental formations; nothing justifies their reliability because they could equally have been constructed otherwise, in accordance with other conventinal guidelines...
(Quoted by Gombrich in What the Buddha Thought, p. 149.

According to this, no dictionary can adequately capture any reality other than linguistic convention at one point in time; although some are, of course, dumber than others. It is also why, in my opinion, there is a "law of diminishing returns" when heated discussions erupt over what the Buddha "really" meant by a particular word or phrase.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by lyndon taylor » Wed May 30, 2018 3:44 am

Accusing the dictionary of hate speech!! Sounds pretty dumb and dishonest!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Kim OHara » Wed May 30, 2018 6:41 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 9:24 pm
Greetings perkele,

There's a certain self-assuredness in certain quarters that the frame of reference that they apply to the world is unquestioningly correct.

Satipatthana teaches us that the frame of reference applied fundamentally shapes our experience of things. To not recognize that, and to take the frame of reference as granted, or as absolute, is in an intellectual shortcoming. It is, as you say, "dumb and dishonest".

Metta,
Paul. :)
Not necessarily dishonest. Stupidity is responsible for more bad choices than dishonesty, and there's no need to impute ill-will unnecessarily.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Kim OHara » Wed May 30, 2018 6:49 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 10:24 pm
As Noa Ronkin says,
Although language is a constant feature of our experience, we are normally unaware of the paradox in the cognitive process: to become knowable all the incoming sensory data must be verbally differentiated, but as such they are mere constructions, mental formations; nothing justifies their reliability because they could equally have been constructed otherwise, in accordance with other conventinal guidelines...
(Quoted by Gombrich in What the Buddha Thought, p. 149.
:twothumbsup:
Very good.
:thinking:
Incomplete, however, since (I think) it assumes all experience must be verbalised to be "known" and that's either untrue or makes for anarrower definition of "known" that I would like. I "know" how to walk, for instance, but I don't know it in words, I know it in physical sensations and habits. I "know" what a magpie sounds like, too, but that's an aural memory which I couldn't put into words. And, since this is DW, I "know" what certain meditative states feel like, and recognise what others are trying to describe when they talk about them, but ...

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by retrofuturist » Wed May 30, 2018 6:54 am

Greetings Kim,
Not necessarily dishonest. Stupidity is responsible for more bad choices than dishonesty, and there's no need to impute ill-will unnecessarily
Possibly, but to actually work for a dictionary company and not grasp the limitations of language, or comprehend the contradictions and double-standards in one's own definitions is either both... or perhaps if ill-will should not be presupposed, just a double-dose of stupidity.

The term "mansplain" is inherently sexist, and that reality cannot be avoided unless one is disingenuously redefining existing terms in accordance with frames of reference such as "critical theory". This is the kind of post-modernist, hard-leftist, discriminatory claptrap that sees people say nonsense things like "black people cannot be racist, because racism requires discrimination and privilege or power."

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4423
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Sam Vara » Wed May 30, 2018 7:11 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 6:49 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 10:24 pm
As Noa Ronkin says,
Although language is a constant feature of our experience, we are normally unaware of the paradox in the cognitive process: to become knowable all the incoming sensory data must be verbally differentiated, but as such they are mere constructions, mental formations; nothing justifies their reliability because they could equally have been constructed otherwise, in accordance with other conventinal guidelines...
(Quoted by Gombrich in What the Buddha Thought, p. 149.
:twothumbsup:
Very good.
:thinking:
Incomplete, however, since (I think) it assumes all experience must be verbalised to be "known" and that's either untrue or makes for anarrower definition of "known" that I would like. I "know" how to walk, for instance, but I don't know it in words, I know it in physical sensations and habits. I "know" what a magpie sounds like, too, but that's an aural memory which I couldn't put into words. And, since this is DW, I "know" what certain meditative states feel like, and recognise what others are trying to describe when they talk about them, but ...

:namaste:
Kim
Yes, I think she is using a narrower definition, along the lines of "cognition", because she is referring to all five khandas here. For the same reason, Sue Hamilton sometimes construes vinnana as the ability to represent one's sensory input to oneself. Beyond mere walking there is the ability to recognise "this/that is walking", and similarly "that's magpie", and "She's talking about that mental state". I'm not sure about Ronkin's reason for doing that here as I don't have the context to hand, but Hamilton includes this because it is the basis for sati. It's basically being exhaustive about the process of human cognition.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Mr Man » Wed May 30, 2018 7:33 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 6:54 am
The term "mansplain" is inherently sexist
Perhaps you could show how that is the case Paul?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by retrofuturist » Wed May 30, 2018 8:24 am

Greetings Mr. Man,

Better still, here's Mitch Fifield to explain (note: not, mansplain)



And since hate speech is defined as "speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."... we can logically conclude that Tim Pool is correct, and Dictionary.com is "dumb and dishonest".

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Mr Man » Wed May 30, 2018 8:50 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:24 am
Greetings Mr. Man,

Better still, here's Mitch Fifield to explain (note: not, mansplain)



Metta,
Paul. :)
Cor! he certainly got triggered didn't he.

So if you put man in front of a word it makes it sexist?

Retrofutrist considers "mansplain" sexist and hate speech?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by retrofuturist » Wed May 30, 2018 8:56 am

Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:50 am
Cor! he certainly got triggered didn't he.
Interesting that's your interpretation... I'd say he seized upon an opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy of the gender-obsessed left. It was Katy who could barely string together a coherent and intelligible sentence in response.
Mr Man wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:50 am
So if you put man in front of a word it makes it sexist?
Not necessarily so. Manskills and mancave come to mind as counter-examples.
Mr Man wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:50 am
Retrofutrist considers "mansplain" sexist and hate speech?
If the words "sexist" and "hate speech" actually mean what they say in the dictionary, and aren't subject to revision by the post-modernist newspeak of the regressive-left, then yes.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Mr Man » Wed May 30, 2018 9:16 am

Hi Paul
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:56 am
Mr Man wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:50 am
Cor! he certainly got triggered didn't he.
Interesting that's your interpretation... I'd say he seized upon an opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy of the gender-obsessed left. It was Katy who could barely string together a coherent and intelligible sentence in response.
I think she was taken aback by how triggered he was. Look at his body language. Listen to the tone of his voice. She seemed fairly coherent. He tried to talk over her.
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:56 am
Mr Man wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 8:50 am
So if you put man in front of a word it makes it sexist?
Not necessarily so. Manskills and mancave come to mind as counter-examples.
So perhaps you could please go back to my first question and explain why "mansplain" is inherently sexist?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by retrofuturist » Wed May 30, 2018 9:26 am

Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 9:16 am
So perhaps you could please go back to my first question and explain why "mansplain" is inherently sexist?
Mitch covered that. Perhaps you were too preoccupied with his body language and such to hear what was said?

If your skills at identifying, comprehending and calling out the left's identity-based double-standards are inferior to those of a man you regard as triggered, then I'm not quite sure how you expect me to help you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Dictionary.com is dumb and dishonest

Post by Mr Man » Wed May 30, 2018 9:34 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 9:26 am
Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 9:16 am
So perhaps you could please go back to my first question and explain why "mansplain" is inherently sexist?
Mitch covered that. Perhaps you were too preoccupied with his body language and such to hear what was said?

If your skills at identifying and calling out the left's identity-based double-standards are inferior to those of a man you regard as triggered, then I'm not quite sure how you expect me to help you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
He said something about putting the word man in front of an action or something like that.

Perhaps you could point out exactly where he explains how "mansplain" is inherently sexist?

Does he do that?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests