Comments for PurpleCar

Comment on Facebook Phish: For Geeks Only by PurpleCar

PurpleCar — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:31:07 +0000

No problem! Yes, I don't use my purplecar email for Facebook either. That's a killer clue, also.

________________________________

Comment on Facebook Phish: For Geeks Only by Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:24:41 +0000

Thanks Christine.

You confirmed my suspicions. It's early and I almost took the bait;) My Facebook acct is on another email.

Comment on “Social Media” as a term is redundant and obsolete. by PurpleCar

PurpleCar — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:28:08 +0000

U r right I shldnt do tht

Lol that was just to be funny.

Seriously though, it s ridiculous for any linguist to suggest I cannot use a term in any way I see fit. Whether you fall on the prescriptivist or descriptivist side, you will still have to deal with varied use of language. I agree that I may push boundaries of meaning, but my point in my original post was clear. You may argue semantics because you both have a passion for it (which I adore) but you miss the intent of the communication.

I was a bit harsh in my response, but I interpreted his comments as myopic and rude. Thanks for weighing in and giving me some further insight in what Ruddle was trying to say.

Comment on “Social Media” as a term is redundant and obsolete. by PurpleCar

PurpleCar — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:18:09 +0000

Then u should know better.

Comment on “Social Media” as a term is redundant and obsolete. by Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:01:22 +0000

I do think you were a bit harsh in this response to Ruddle. You've made an accusation of prescriptivism when, in fact, he or she is defending a resolutely descriptivist approach to language (which is entirely consistent with a linguistics degree from Harvard or anywhere else). There is a simple test for “how non-descriptive and useless such a general and old-fashioned term social media is.” And that test is how often its use in context occasions confusion among interlocutors. In my experience, everyday speakers do not have any difficulty understanding what is meant. Of course, it's an empirical question, and any good descriptive linguist could devise an elicitation experiment that could show you a demographic distribution of the intelligibility of the term. That intelligibility is really the only question here. Your argument up top seems to suggest that there is some kind of lack of logical 'fit' between the term “social media” and the 'facts on the ground' it describes. This is, essentially, an ideology of correctness you'll find in many prescriptivist arguments–that language fails to parse reality precisely right. It's what Whitehead calls the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. Anyway, still, there's no cause for describing your commenters as misguided and under-educated!

Comment on “Social Media” as a term is redundant and obsolete. by Ruddle

Ruddle — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:42:41 +0000

I have a linguistics degree from Harvard.

Comment on Disqus lost my comment by Maliyah Matthews

Maliyah Matthews — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:38:15 +0000

Disqus now brings us the ability to comment using your Twitter account. You don’t have to give up your actual Twitter credentials since Disqus takes advantage of Twitter’s support

Comment on “Social Media” as a term is redundant and obsolete. by PurpleCar

PurpleCar — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:04:58 +0000

Thanks for your comments.

Actually you re a bit off the mark and reveal yourself as someone who probably corrects other people s usage. I can use any term I like, actually, because languages support the fluidity of which you speak (contradicting yourself in the process).

It all comes down to what you think language is. I think language is a descriptive force with living changes and many shades of gray in meaning. The point of this post, in particular, is to show how non-descriptive and useless such a general and old-fashioned term social media is. You can argue about my usage of certain words until the cows come home, but at the end of the day my readers understood my point.

What you meant to say was that my use of obsolete was hyperbole. Perhaps you should think first of the tone of language before you think about stretching out your misguided and under-educated (in this sense) fingers. Language is more than you realize, I think. You may want to start reading up on it as an area of study, seeing that you have an interest on exact usage. If you want, I can research some starter books for you. Let me know.

Thanks for saying what I am sure several readers were wondering.

Comment on “Social Media” as a term is redundant and obsolete. by Ruddle

Ruddle — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:56:49 +0000

You can't just pick and choose the meanings you want a word to have from a given definition. 2(b) is an anatomy term related to “a plant or animal part,” which is irrelevant to the conversation. 1(b)'s “OUTMODED” is predicated on “a style…no longer current,” which directly supports D'Coda's point. The term 'obsolete' in current, consensus usage is determined by how widely used a word is. Just because you declare the term “social media” to be indistinct or arbitrary reflects an idiosyncratic viewpoint. True, many others may agree with your view, but as long as a critical mass of people think of social media as a distinct thing from traditional, one-way media, “social media” will be a term for this. In time, when the novelty of the internet wears off, and when people's perceptions of online media settle on a new consensus, we might see a new term. I just think you're being a little nit-picky and arbitrarily semantic when it comes to “social” as a modifier of “media.” It's just a term we've implicitly agreed on using as a society to describe a thing we collective see as existing. Additionally, words aren't always tied directly to their etymologies either. Think of the word “anybody” for example. We don't mean literally any “physical substance of an animal or plant, living or dead” when we say this; obviously, it's a term we collectively use to mean any person. “Social media,” like any other term in the history of language, is simply a signifier of a signified. There's always going to be a disconnect between the two as long as we're using words, which are inherently imprecise (due to their fluidity), to bridge that gap.

Comment on Example of a Cease & Desist Letter by Benjamin Fryxell

Benjamin Fryxell — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:57:39 +0000

hahaha way to show 'em, Christine