• Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Do commenters here truly believe this is real or am i missing something. I am not trying to be antaganostic, i am genuinely confused.

    • Zetta@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Believe what is real? The interaction in the screen shot or the profile of the person in the screenshot?

      I don’t have a reason to doubt the interaction being genuine, and the profile screenshot also seems like a genuine profile from someone being funny.

      • MrShankles@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I literally have no fucking clue. But I don’t like the tone of your syntax; you better watch how you type when commenting, my dude

    • Sidhean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Sure, all digital records are falsifiable. But everything here seems… normal. I’m not sure what you mean? It’s not like they’re claiming their school made them shit in a sandbox or anything. Not trying to be antagonistic, I just don’t see anything here that screams “this is an outright lie” or even “this is implausible”

      • Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Even if it was an outright lie. Why would that make you antagonistic?

        We’re supposed to believe some tumblers have their Bio as the rarest creature in existence. But it’s wrong to believe someone wanted to poke fun at this shit:

        “Quantum Sexual | Heterochromia (Red, Blue, Green) | Multiple Personality Disorder | Paris Syndrome | Ferngully Syndrome | OCD | Reeboks w/ straps | Boots w/ furs | WereBecklespinax”

    • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Assuming all of his traits listed are “default” is part of the problem

      (I’m sorry, I know it’s a joke and I do think it’s quite funny but I feel like I have to bring this up as a disclaimer)

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s “extra”, not “extro”. They’re “extra-terrestrials”, not “extro-terrestrials”. Extro is not a latin word, extra is.

    • Sidhean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      (Excepting extra-verted people) There isn’t anywhere that I see an “extro” that should be an “extra”. Any chance you could point it out?

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        extrovert

        I am on a crusade since about twenty years about this, and the war, well, it’s not going well…

        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          because you’re wrong, lol, prescriptivism is just anti-linguistics. linguistics is desctiptive and based on usage

          • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            And the feeling of love is “just a bunch of chemical interactions” too, right?

            Edit: Oh, and by the way

            Why is extrovert sometimes spelled extravert?

            Carl Jung based the two terms on Latin, in which “extra” means outside and “intro” means inside. A psychologist named Phyllis Blanchard later changed the spelling of the term in a paper, which played a role in the extrovert spelling becoming the predominant form.

            Today, the extravert spelling is still widely used in psychology, while the extrovert spelling remains more common in popular usage.

            Kaufman S. The difference between extraversion and extroversion. Scientific American.

            See, that’s not “lankuake cheinkcsh”, that’s degradation of language because Phyllis got it wrong, and now everyone is.

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              “degradation of language” oh boy you’d hate to see how different English was 1000 years ago. Is modern English just a degradation of Anglo-Saxon? Or do we go even further back and say that all Indo-European languages are just degradations of PIE? You know that a large portion of the words that you use on a regular basis come from the exact process you describe right now, right? When exactly does normal language change become “degradation of lamguage”, is it just when you don’t like it?

              Do you think that you know more about linguistics than every modern accredited linguist, to say that a certain type of language change in certain scenarios is “incorrect”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogical_change

              Maybe you should solve this worksheet to get a feel lol. https://homepage.rub.de/silke.hoeche/Aspects of Language Change/Analogy and morphological change.htm

              Linguistics is first and foremost a science, which means you don’t look at what occurs in reality and call it “wrong”. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive, and you look silly to a majority of linguists if you act like a word like “extrovert” is wrong, ESPECIALLY when it’s standard usage.

              All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.

              This paragraph is for undeducated people like you, friendo.

              You probably think that AAVE is just “bastardized English” or that Scottish people speak wrong English.

              • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                I actually read Old English without much effort, as well as the languages it originated from, particularly Old Norse, French, and Germanic.

                Degradation of language: misuse of language due to lack of education, erudition, or inclination. I can forgive some misinterpretation and adaptation, but that’s my issue. “Extro” does not make sense, unless someone got it wrong that one time and then spread it around until everyone was saying it wrong. That pisses me off, not to mention it makes me question Phyllis’s judgment on Jung’s corpus of work as a whole, she clearly didn’t read much of it.

                There is a difference between a language evolving in response to changes in the environment or the human condition, and a language degrading into “barbar” because nobody bothered to learn how to speak, and thereby write, correctly. I believe that there are no 1:1 transmutations of words in such a manner which wouldn’t remove some amount of information, and the degradation of information is kind of a massive deal to humanity right now.

                Let me ask, what does “begging the question” mean to you?

                • force@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  I actually read Old English without much effort, as well as the languages it originated from, particularly Old Norse, French, and Germanic.

                  Christ man you’re such a liar lmao. GERMANIC ISN’T A LANGUAGE. And certainly not a WRITTEN one. And English didn’t “originate” from French. Old English is unintelligible to Modern English speakers because it’s a completely different language, you are straight up lying through your teeth when you say you can read it fine, much less understand it. 85% of vocabulary in Old English isn’t even present in Modern English. Even more so with Old Norse lmao. French is very clearly unintelligible with English as well. French is literally my second language, so I can very easily tell you that. Why do you feel the need to blatantly lie about being able to understand other languages, including ficticious ones?

                  Degradation of language: misuse of language due to lack of education, erudition, or inclination. I can forgive some misinterpretation and adaptation, but that’s my issue. “Extro” does not make sense, unless someone got it wrong that one time and then spread it around until everyone was saying it wrong. That pisses me off, not to mention it makes me question Phyllis’s judgment on Jung’s corpus of work as a whole, she clearly didn’t read much of it.

                  That entire take is just silly. “Language degratation” is a lie sold to you by shitty middle school English Language Arts teachers.

                  “All living languages are continually undergoing change. Some commentators use derogatory labels such as “corruption” to suggest that language change constitutes a degradation in the quality of a language, especially when the change originates from human error or is a prescriptively discouraged usage. Modern linguistics rejects this concept, since from a scientific point of view such innovations cannot be judged in terms of good or bad. John Lyons notes that “any standard of evaluation applied to language-change must be based upon a recognition of the various functions a language ‘is called upon’ to fulfil in the society which uses it”.”

                  Again, your stance is seen as completely stupid in the realm of actual linguistics science.

                  There is a difference between a language evolving in response to changes in the environment or the human condition, and a language degrading into “barbar” because nobody bothered to learn how to speak, and thereby write, correctly. I believe that there are no 1:1 transmutations of words in such a manner which wouldn’t remove some amount of information, and the degradation of information is kind of a massive deal to humanity right now.

                  There isn’t a difference. How do you think sound change and many other forms of language change occur without this ““degradation””? Do you think that the transitions between languages just happen because God willed it and everyone just accepted it? No, people back then complained about language change in the same exact way that you are now. You are speaking a “bastardized” form of language by your own logic. Every word you speak is completely different from the “educated” proscribed speak of before. Almost none of the words you’re saying are being used in their ““original”” sense.

                  Let me ask, what does “begging the question” mean to you?

                  According to your anti-scientific logic, it should mean to approach a question and start begging to it.

                  I want to ask you again, do you think AAVE, Scottish English, and all other large dialect groups of English are incorrect? Do you think you’re better at linguistics than a majority of professional linguists?

    • blujan@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      If you’re talking of extrovert then you’re wrong, extrovert is a correct spelling of the word.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        No, extravert is the correct psychological nomenclature. Extraversion. Extroversion was not a thing until everyone got it wrong and it had to be shoved into dictionaries. Doesn’t change a thing, “extro” is not a word. “Intro” on the other hand, is. As in “introvert”.

        What, do mutants have extro-sensory perception now, too? Is there extroneous information? Extrovehicular? Extrovagance? Extrovaganza?

        “Extraversion” is correct.

        • BearGun@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Sorry bud, it’s a word exactly because “everyone got it wrong and it had to be shoved into dictionaries”. Languages and the words they contain aren’t static, they evolve over time based on how people use them.

          • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            No no, language as it existed at the time I learned it is the FOREVER AND ONLY CORRECT WAY. -OP, probably.

            • Leafhouse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Theyre like the linguistic version of religious nutjobs. Semantics dont matter, they just want you to live your life according to a stern set of rules with no flexibility. Submit or burn in hell.

              • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                In the 90s there was an explosion of people desperate to “correct” every usage of the word ‘irony.’

                Nevermind that one of the definitions is just an “incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.”

                Any outcome that’s different from what you expected meets the definition of ‘ironic.’ That’s all you need.

                You probably shouldn’t expect clear weather just because it’s your wedding day. But if you do, and it rains, it’s fuckin ironic.

                But to this day, fools fall all over themselves to chirp up anytime Alanis Morisette comes on the radio.

                The allure of the appearance of superiority is strong. We’re all vulnerable to it, or most of us.

        • saigot@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          A quick search on Google scholar for “extravert” and “extrovert” both yield results with hundreds of citations so I think both are clearly acceptable.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Oof, shove a bat up your ass! Do governments perform extrojudicial killings? Do we extrodite prisoners, and extropolate data, too?

        Extra means “without” or “outside”. Extro has no definition, because it’s not a word. It is in opposition to “intro” which is also, GASP, a latin word, meaning “within”, or “inside”. How is this hard to understand? God I hate throngs of people being wrong at the same time.

        “Extrovert” was introduced BECAUSE uneducated people used the wrong word so much they had to.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Extrovert" was introduced BECAUSE uneducated people used the wrong word so much they had to.

          Boy, wait til you learn about literally every word in the English language (another example of a word changing due to use)

        • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Or English comes from a broad range of roots, not just Latin, and you have a hard time admitting when you were wrong!

          Not to mention you already conceded that it’s the current correct form of the word, and if you think language doesn’t change over time due to usage then you’re doubly ignorant.

          • force@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It gives me so much joy seeing a Lemmy thread collectively shit on a completely bad take on linguistics

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Jung used “extra” and “intro”, case closed. Latin for “turning outside” and “turning inside”.

        …though Jung also didn’t mean extraversion as synonymous with “sociable” or introversion with “needs to refill their tank” or whatnot, but “cognition primarily concerned with the object as opposed to the subject or the other way around”.

    • cuchilloc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      extravert is reserved for Tony Hawk and the likes, like the guy who did a 1440 on the super ramp.

    • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s a Germanic word, not a Latin word. It’s based on the German word extravert but it is absolutely spelled extrovert in English since about 1918.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Jung was Swiss that doesn’t make extravert any less Latin. German would be “auswärts gerichtet” vs. “einwärts gerichtet”.

    • swiftcasty@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      What others have already said, but just know that I forgive you for thinking that extroverts are extra 😝

  • I was neurodivergent all this time. It’s just people expressed it as there’s something odd about that little boy._

    The thing is, the more you explore all those microlabels, the more you find things that you’re into, which wouldn’t have been explored if you’re socially obligated to conform to a standard vanilla norm. Dark identity. (As in dark matter, not who the man is in the dark though there sometimes is that.)

    For me, the gateway was major depression. I did a lot of deep diving to understand why I so readily despair even when outlooks appeared to be okay (though on national and global levels there are good justifications for dispair, but that’s a different rant) In finding out why I’m so conditioned to Tragic Vampire Romance Island, I find out all my microidentities and kinks along the way.

  • disgruntledbroad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    As a queer person, for me at least I find the ‘default’ language pretty funny. I think it could just as easily be seen as acknowledgement of privilege as the other way around