In this week's column I demand a halt to people saying "performative"https://www.gawker.com/politics/youre-being-performative-i-dont-like-it …
-
-
On the one hand, the analytic and descriptive sense (Austin's) is still illuminating, even if through majority use (normatively) it suffers deformation and inversion, which is an argument for John's corrective—that's the whole point of rigorous language in the first place.
-
I think philosophy is an attempt to bring to language a rigor that language can't sustain. It's a noble effort but a doomed one.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
no it’s not
-
but the philosophers were already there. People who are using it now are just pretentiously and ignorantly borrowing from existing philosophical language and it annoys. fwiw:https://twitter.com/KarlSteel/status/1427784735141634049 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, exactly—as I called it, “flamboyantly vapid.” The word is *useful* to condense exactly that. And when readers see it now—both those who wish it wasn’t used this way and those who do use it this way—they *understand what the writer is trying to convey.* So whats the problem?
-
Yeah, that's the best response. People understand what the word means contextually (and in fact in actual language all words only have contextual meaning) so there is no problem.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.