Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

Re:Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Ne... by ninkendo on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @11:06AM (#24132768)

Your position seems to be that it’s invalid to even talk about whether a word should be used in a context, if the dictionary says it should. This prevents any discourse around whether we should evolve the language, because an appeal to authority like citing the dictionary would just shut down the debate.

To use an offensive example: This dictionary has a 4th definition for the word “Jew” meaning “to bargain sharply with”: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew

If somebody said “Maybe we shouldn’t use “Jew” as a verb to mean this, since it has negative connotations”, would you also cite this dictionary link to say that it’s perfectly fine? (I would charitably assume no.)

The discussion is, to me, very clear. We all know that “Poach” can mean hiring someone from a competitor. But some of us feel that using it in that regard creates the wrong connotation, and although it’s commonly used, and even in the dictionary, maybe we ought to not use it that way.

Do you see why citing the dictionary is counterproductive here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Ne... by pandaman on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @12:12PM (#24133505)

I am sure you are trolling now. You pick an example from some unknown dictionary, explicitly marked as offensive right there and pretend there is an argument if it's offensive or not. Is not this exactly what you had been accusing me of doing? Anyways, my position is pretty clear - if you disagree and want your own language, I am fine with it, have a day.

[ Parent | on HN ]