Speaking of using the wrong word...
PS: someone marry this girl quick, before the libtards destroy her.
PS: someone marry this girl quick, before the libtards destroy her.
Last edited:
-
ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.
The Misuse of Words
- Thread starter Valentin Pearson
- Start date
That's one of the ones I hate, "literally" to mean "figuratively." Or even just used in an entirely meaningless way to add emotional emphasis, much like the most popular word in the world, the one that starts with 'f' and ends in 'ck'.
Last edited:
I don’t really care what she said, but I want to point out these conservative influencers and grifters can be disingenuous. She says her type is a ‘broke ass mechanic’, I guarantee she will reject 99% of ‘broke ass mechanics’ that come her way.
Yikes, not the reaction I had at all.
First, instant next for obnoxiously starting her half naked video with "SO....."
Second, totally inappropriate dress for a female cooking channel (the internet is calling her a trad wife; that's extremely disrespectful to your husband).
Third, I took her comment to mean that all her married friends were race mixers.
Perhaps I misunderstood her. But if she is referring to the hard working husbands of her good friends as "broke ass niggas" that is also bad. Rude and unfeminine. If I was going through a difficult time financially, and a woman referred to me as a BAN I would be upset.
Fourth, she drops a ton of profanity.
Fifth, she's into broke guys and surfers? Uh, there's a surfing metaphor out there for HUGE RED FLAG.
Total pass, and I don't see a single thing "trad" about this girl other than she supposedly knows how to cook, something all females outside the anglo world have to know, or they starve.
George Carlin had THE BEST skits about misuse of words ever.
Thank you, George. I will forever cringe when airlines announce they are "pre-boarding" or tell you it's time to get ON the plane.
We mock the tranny use of the pronouns 'they/them', and rightfully so, but then we ourselves (even here on this forum) use 'they/them' in a gender-neutral way without even thinking about it...
Here's an example. Imagine you're telling a story about someone you've had an encounter with in the street. You start by saying, 'Someone approached me in the street and they asked me the time'.
Why not say 'he' or 'she' accordingly?
Or if you don't know if it's a male or female because you're speaking in hypotheticals, then just resort to the masculine pronoun: 'If I'm walking down the street and I see someone who's clearly lost, I'll ask him if he needs directions' (and not 'I'll ask them if they need directions').
Did we always use 'they/them' in English like this, or is this a modern aberration?
Here's an example. Imagine you're telling a story about someone you've had an encounter with in the street. You start by saying, 'Someone approached me in the street and they asked me the time'.
Why not say 'he' or 'she' accordingly?
Or if you don't know if it's a male or female because you're speaking in hypotheticals, then just resort to the masculine pronoun: 'If I'm walking down the street and I see someone who's clearly lost, I'll ask him if he needs directions' (and not 'I'll ask them if they need directions').
Did we always use 'they/them' in English like this, or is this a modern aberration?
I think the examples you gave have been normal since long before any ideas about made up pronouns. There are some cases where an LGBT could use 'they/them' pronouns in a way that would be the same as conventional usage.
Using they/them for an individual is close to normal usage, compared to really far out pronouns like xe/xir.
People do that when they either don't know if it's male or female, or when they do but they want to take the focus away from it. It's not the same.
The trannies themselves try to pretend that it's the same as how they use it (in order to try and make it seem normal), but it's not.
In terms of trannies I would like to add "it".
Isn't that just a relative sentence? I mean, it's not an aesthetically pleasing construct, but isn't it technically correct? I'm not a native English speaker.
English is bound to get massacred on many levels because it's the world's Lingua Franca and we have global media.
I noticed that many people now say "does gets" or "does makes" and stuff like that. I noticed that many native speakers also say "he did used to(...)", which I would probably have received a correction for in school. There are half a billion Indians and Pakis online everyday producing tiktoks with AI voices, and there is no way to combat it. Children are picking it up, and who can blame them.
But English has had that forever. The language used to have actual present term conjugation, not too long ago, but they interacted with too many others who couldn't grasp it in a short amount of time, so they gave it up.
The stylistic problems don't really fit with your other words, because those were conscious creations to manipulate dialogue, not just bad English.
Gender got explicitly rebranded by Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin to fit their weird kabbalistic neoplatonism. It's linguistic obfuscation, but it's consistent with the paradigm they were pushing. That's why the NS student councils wanted to make it illegal for Jews to publish anything in German, using Hebrew instead, so their ideas couldn't just appear natural to young people.
I think getting riled up about stylistic changes in English is a bit of a pointless endeavor. German, too, probably, but German is written phonetically and with a clear grammar, and English never really had either, which is why it never really protected itself from change. If it could of, it would of, as they say. Then again, your average German today also doesn't know where to put commas and what cases to use in many sentences, and the Genitive case is all but extinct. You need to have a homogeneous group where most people have a firm grasp of the rules of the language in order to maintain them. That's why Russia still maintains a complex case system, whereas Bulgarians just threw most of them out. No use if most people don't know how to use it correctly.
It's whatever. Languages go the way of their speakers. The vast majority of regular English speakers nowadays are foreigners from low IQ countries. And young people from everywhere. All infused with Hip Hop and pop culture.
I, for one, embrace it. I am a sulky teenager at heart and also a based and redpilled Skibidi Ohio Rizzler, finna take my fanum tax wherever I might.
Let's not forget to list the upper and lower case in the wrong way.
How About I Beat you Up?
I just had somebody try to refer to a Cisseps Fulvicollis, and ended up calling it a Cissens Follicular! 
She was trying to refer to a kind of moth, but ended using the fancy medical term for an ovarian cyst instead!
She was trying to refer to a kind of moth, but ended using the fancy medical term for an ovarian cyst instead!
It's really because a huge limitation of the English language vis-a-vis other Romance languages is the lack of a third person general pronoun, aka "one." You can often use the word "one" to correctly say what you mean but English has a lot of technically incorrect but widely used conventions.
"If one wishes to avoid trouble, one should stay away from the city after dark."
French, for example, has lui, elle, and soi to mean himself, herself, and onesself, respectively.
Is there really a third person gender neutral pronoun in English?
I had to look it up and oneself is actually a word but it is not conventionally used.
In place of oneself I did in the past use they or them until the tranny stuff happened and then I realized that was grammatically incorrect.
It is in fact 'he', at least in good writing. Traditionally 'he' served as both masculine third-person singular and neuter third-person singular. In modern usage this neuter usage of 'he' is viewed as 'sexist' and, even in good writing, it's met with disapproval.
Likewise for 'man'. Traditionally it meant either 'adult male' or just 'human' in general (i.e., 'someone'). We find this general use in traditional English versions of the Bible. Of course, that too is seen as 'sexist' usage today.
Did speakers of English in the past use 'he/man' in their neuter sense in colloquial speech? I haven't a clue. In good writing, yes, but what did the commoners say spontaneously? Did they say 'they' the way we say it today?
Either way, it would be great to see a return to tradition in good writing. Colloquial speech is always messier, and that's fine, but our writing standards have gone out the window.
A masculine term like "mankind" is fine, because it obviously refers to all of humanity. But using "he" when it is not clear whether you are talking about a group of men and women, or just men, is not ideal. Language should be precise and clear.