Then perhaps they should say "love isn't truly a real thing; here's my reasoning about why", and not "love is just a word", which is a linguistic trap.
-
-
Replying to @perrymetzger
This just doesn't seem true to the way people use language! Usually they don't know why exactly they think a thing, or even what exactly they think. But they have an experience (like, maybe love sucked for them) and they got an impression (like, maybe love is overrated), and
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @perrymetzger
they want to convey that impression of life to you and make you have *roughly* that sense of things as well. "Love is just a word" seems like a perfectly good way to gesture in a direction like that. It's not an argument. But it's only very rarely that arguments are possible.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
It's a terrible form of communication even if it's common, because people often *think* they share some sort of common information after exchanging such phrases even though they've conveyed almost nothing at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @perrymetzger
Don't you ever think associationally? This reminds me of that? Cluster thinking? That's how metaphor & rhetoric works. Doesn't follow syllogistic logic, does convey *some* info, and (importantly) is actually possible for the majority of situations where you do not have
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @perrymetzger
the info necessary to form a logically true statement. About most situations I *cannot* make a complete sentence that I can promise will be even close to correct. Not enough data points. I'm still perceiving and classifying and associating though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
But how is this made better by using linguistically deceptive phrasings? Unless your goal is to make it seem like you already know more than you do? Again, often people will deny that unpackings of such phrases are true even if they claim the phrases are true. Red flag, that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @perrymetzger
I truly don't see the deception. "Love is just a word" = "love is like those other things that are "just words", i.e. empty verbiage".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Except, again, when you deal with deepities, people often refuse to agree with an unpacked version of a sentence that they agree with. So I think your claim here is false; it isn't just some sort of obvious shorthand everyone understands.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @perrymetzger
Not everybody understands it as the same thing. The communication fidelity is poor. That's what cluster thinking gets you; it doesn't have the mechanisms (like one word = defined meanings) that ensure reliable transmission. Similar people get similar impressions though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
it's like GPT2. "Sounds like", "is filed near", graph metrics. Your graph is not my graph, but your graph may be like my graph if you've had similar experiences.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
But that's not what this is about at all. It's not about trying to convey vague impressions that you explain well. It's about language that conceals.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.