Re:Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
by ajkjk on Sunday June 26, 2016 @03:34PM
(#11982277)
I don't think the OP said anything about supporting other kinds of newspeak.
I don't think the OP said anything that seemed falsely equivalent. Constantly saying "used" instead of "user" is clearly similar to saying "Democrap" in at least one obvious way: that you're childishly substituting a replacement for a common word in an attempt to be clever and subversive, while alienating anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Their point was very clear and it seems like you're misinterpreting it on purpose, as though you have your hands over your ears.
Re:Reasons not to use (i.e., be used by) Facebook
by wmccullough on Sunday June 26, 2016 @03:38PM
(#11982294)
Right now, you're undermining his point by drawing an example from something he clearly didn't even talk about (i.e. Your example not his). Whether you love or hate Stallman, OP has made a valid point here. You can't expect to capture the hearts and minds of a prospective audience by alienating them intellectually. If I had no idea who Stallman was, and I read this, I wouldn't even consider taking it seriously. It comes off like a spoiled child who's just angsty enough to "fight the power".
How do you feel about terms like "collateral damage" that used to be "murdered civilians" in war?
Secondly there is internal logic to "used" that is not present in the name calling you compare it to. False equivalency does not strengthen your argument.