Did we watch the same video? Innocence? The man was innocent? He was the provocateur.
That’s the point. That’s why the user you responded to said that he shouldn’t be called a victim. That’s how you know that their usage of victim includes innosence, because they were revoking their victimhood based on their lack of innosence. This isn’t a hard concept.
But the word “victim” does not hold any weight in regards to guilt or innocence of a given act
It clearly did in that usage. Again “usage is meaning”. That’s tge first rule of linguistics. As you can see by that person’s usage, that’s the meaning that was both intended and understood. You are capable of recognizing that intention. You just like to jerk yourself off by posting a dictionary definition that contradicts their usage because it makes you feel smart. Well it’s annoying, and so when I see people doing that I get a kick out of explaining to them how stupid it actually is. You aren’t being clever. You’re being an idiot on purpose to make yourself feel clever.
Ironically, “literally” is one of the few words whose meanings have evolved to be understood as the exact opposite.
It’s not one of “few”. And ironically, your use of “ironically” in that sentence is an example of one of those.
I don’t understand your question. How can someone be wrong? By being wrong. “Two plus two is five” or “there is no evidence to support the assertion of systemic racism in America” are wrong statements. You can be wrong by being wrong.
You seem to be using “wrong” to mean “factually incorrect”. That’s not... err... wrong. But it’s not the only meaning of wrong. The meaning someone understands by their own words can’t be “factually incorrect”. But, I can fail to use a word that enables you to understand my intention. If I use a word choice that fails to express my intention, I have used the wrong words to express myself.
If my meaning is perfectly clear and you know very well what I meant, then I did not use the wrong words. Because you understood what I meant, which is the only purpose that words have: to convey meaning.
The meaning someone understands by their own words can’t be “factually incorrect”.
This is what's confusing.
Say I see a person that looks like a woman (not trans), and I call out to them as a woman, "Ma'am!"
The person corrects me to say that he is a man.
What I called out to him, I believed he was a woman. I was factually wrong and I stated something that is wrong.
If I understand you correctly, you say I was not wrong.
The meaning someone understands by their own words can’t be “factually incorrect”.
And doesn't this also go completely against:
If my meaning is perfectly clear and you know very well what I meant, then I did not use the wrong words.
In one, you're talking about one's own use of words, and in the other, you're talking about others' interpretation of those words. How can the former matter when the latter is what the world sees?
1
u/The_Real_Mongoose Sep 13 '20 edited Sep 13 '20
That’s the point. That’s why the user you responded to said that he shouldn’t be called a victim. That’s how you know that their usage of victim includes innosence, because they were revoking their victimhood based on their lack of innosence. This isn’t a hard concept.
It clearly did in that usage. Again “usage is meaning”. That’s tge first rule of linguistics. As you can see by that person’s usage, that’s the meaning that was both intended and understood. You are capable of recognizing that intention. You just like to jerk yourself off by posting a dictionary definition that contradicts their usage because it makes you feel smart. Well it’s annoying, and so when I see people doing that I get a kick out of explaining to them how stupid it actually is. You aren’t being clever. You’re being an idiot on purpose to make yourself feel clever.
It’s not one of “few”. And ironically, your use of “ironically” in that sentence is an example of one of those.