Beiträge von rafix73

    That is because in America, we didn't kill our women on sight or the people who aided them in their speech. Things would be a lot different if we had.

    Right, in fact when George Sodini opened fire in that gym outside Pittsburgh didn't shoot three women on sight, and injured nine others, right? May I remind you that he, as other killers before and after him, specifically targeted women? Oh wait, this is America, and not some "savage" terrorist-filled and evil country, so we must simply justify and rationalize this "ghastly incident" or "put it into context" (ugh), and possibly dismiss it as statistics. Why don't we just shrug about it with an informed "it happens?"

    This is, if we don't count the many women, and those who helped them fight for their rights, that actually were not just killed, but were also subjugated, abused, considered and treated as objects, murdered in their houses by their husbands, with justice absolving the men on a constant basis, and worse.

    Things are different and better now... according to men.

    You see the world in more of an absolute line of thinking. I see the world the way it really is, not black or white, but gray. Your values would discourage many from speaking freely and safely, my values would empower people to speak freely and safely.

    You seems to believe in absolute accountability, regardless of the cost, the possible injustice, and loss of life. I believe in reasonable accountability, with reasonable protections based upon circumstances that may require them.

    We can both agree that corporation and individuals who sell products or services online should be bright to light (I think). I don't believe that part has been in dispute.

    I don't see the world as black or white, you are mistaken. Rather, I take notice of the ways society enforces these extremes through unbalance and ad-hoc social norms. I simply try to understand its dangers ensuing from it, recognize them, so I can avoid them as best as I am able to. I believe in accountability, because we must own responsibility for our actions -- it really is silly arguing that we shouldn't be.

    The flaw in your argument that I cannot overcome is by your understanding of risk and freedom, everyone, everywhere on the planet has freedom of speech... Which is certainly not true. But I imagine you would argue that it is true, because there is nothing physically stopping someone from speaking, just as there is nothing physically stopping you from breathing... And that there is only consequences.

    And the basic flaw in yours is believing in a dream-land, a ideal world, where we would be able to speak freely and never face consequences for it. As I explained to you earlier, this is not the world we live in, and people are and will always be held accountable for their actions and words. Some might be able to delay their accountability by escaping or hiding. Some other might even be able to avoid accountability altogether, but as a rule of thumb, that's how the world works. To fight from behind the safe trench of anonymity will not change the status, will not change the world, and sure it will not actively aid the cause of freedom of speech and human rights.

    I fear we must agree to disagree. I see no reason to continue this conversation. I feel it would be irrational to do so. Our values are far too different

    It was nice talking you, just the same

    I believe we should indeed agree to disagree :)

    At least, now we both know where the other stands ;)

    That will not change with or without that safety, because you and everyone else will only be an anonymous screen name, just as you are here right now. The only difference is those predators will have someone they can actually target... YOU, since your name, address, and phone number will be freely available to anyone who can do a "who is" search.
    So your idea doesn't change that. It only empowers the predators who would just target the site owner as a means to an ends.

    As I'm sure someone would have loved to have done when a woman was speaking in favor of her faith and belief, but also defending the rights of women. She was nothing more than anonymous screen name, but those extremest would have loved nothing more than to put a bullet in my head for letting her speak.

    Terrorist and religious extremist don't see right or wrong as you or I do. They do not see accountability as you or I do. They deal in complete ablutie black and white, life or death for everything. And I would rather our society not empower them, but rather empower the woman who thought women should be treated as equals.

    A predator can target anyone at anytime, despite 'who is' disclosure or not, and no matter if met online or in the real world. We are at predators' harm's way all the time, even when going to class or to the theater, as we have all witnessed. Danger is around us, like it or not.

    By launching a forum discussion, one must be aware that along with meaningful discussions, the site will eventually attract predators, trolls, and general hostility. To be online is a conscious decision and a choice. To launch a site is conscious decision and a choice. Choices have consequences. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, that's how it works. In order to prevent their own safety, website owners must take preemptive steps to assure that. Stomping feet and crying that it is unfair and unjust is silly.

    The women who were able to fight and win against the stigma, abuse, and mistreatment they had endured for so long in America, fought their battle for endless decades, always head on. They put their faces and names, and paid the price for it. The were targeted, assaulted, humiliated, beaten, and worse. And yet, only thanks to those brave and courageous individuals, today women aren't as badly discriminated as before -- although there are still severe problems in that regard. Those women decided to voice their disagreement against their discrimination, and wanted to shake those norms and constructs that wanted society crystallized in a view where women were considered inferior and always subjected to men. Faces, names, loud voices and active actions are what might shake and change things. To own a discussion board and use it to point fingers behind a digital curtain is not a battle or a fight for one's rights. It's just a rant without a name.

    Ha ha ha. Wow... You presume far too much if you truly think I enjoy a life full of luxury and privilege comfort. I have endorsed enough hardship and cold reality that often in the few places that I talk about my life, people assume I grew up in some 3rd world, backwater country....

    That does not stop me from seeing that often people make the world we live in. But do not get that confused by me saying that I or you alone have the power to make the world we live in... Indeed it takes more than just a few. However, most people fail to realize that collectively, the world is what it is, because we the people make it so.

    No assumptions here. The fact that now, at this point in life, you can afford to sit down, and manage online communities, buy software and plugins, post online and share your opinions, simply shows you are in a position to do so. It is important to notice that privilege is often overlooked or taken for granted by those who enjoy it, aka, they do not think they are privileged. For instance, those belonging to the social majority often pontificate and generalize about minorities' current struggle, and are unable to appreciate their own privileged status.

    People make the world we live in, yes, but the majority of people aren't able to shape it as they want it to be. It just doesn't take few or even masses to carry out changes; it takes people who don't want to hide, and are willing to use their names and faces when fighting for something that they deem worth the sacrifice. Pontificating about change behind a screen, and in anonymity will hardly change much.

    Which is exactly why we shouldn't limit the internet. Online privacy protection allows those who are able to sneak through the cracks... To speak freely without their oppressors hanging them for it. It also allows people such as myself, the freedom to allow those people who sneak through the cracks to inform others of what is happening in their part of the world, without the fear of retaliation.

    It prevents you from becoming a victim and without the risk of becoming a victim. That is why 'who is' privacy is important. Only those who believe in 'absolution' and possibly tyranny, would wish to completely dissolve it completely.

    This isn't limiting the Internet, but just the opposite: more disclosure that will let online consumers and users know who they might be dealing with. As I explained earlier: you are and should be accountable for your actions both online and offline -- that is, the way you address other people and behave in the real world, and what you share online through your website. Yup, in both cases you are responsible.

    Information is often biased and filtered -- even by those organisms that claim they provide it unfiltered -- and released according to certain political, social, and economical agendas. Being biased is another human trait. If you decide to take action and change the world, why shouldn't you put a face and a name behind your claims and the " unfiltered" information you want to share? Not doing so will grant you safety, sure. But then your effort will be vain, because you might end up launching the umpteenth board where actual victims (if any are actually present) will coexist with hostile individuals having extreme views, operating in an environment where granting anonymity also encourage rants, online bullying, fights, etc. and where none of that will change anything in the actual world or make it a better place.

    True and here you and I are limited on what we can talk about, being this is a corporate support forum. There is a difference between here and a general discussion forum. Never the less, you are anonymous in that I and no one else outside of Woltlab (or who you choose to share with), knows who you truly are.

    As I mentioned above, general discussion forums are often places that -- besides level-headed people -- also attract trolls and hostile individuals. These sites often struggle because of that, and you know that all too well, I guess. But no one forced you to launch and run that forum; you made conscious decision, or tried to satisfied a need, to share your personal opinions with others. That is a choice, and choices have consequences.

    In Woltlab, I am anonymous to you and other members, because I don't own this forum or this business. I don't offer any service to users or customers. If I were, I'd have no issues disclosing to customers who they are dealing with, just as much as Woltlab tells who they are. In fact, we know their business location, and their names. See, full disclosure and accountability.

    There should be limits to that accountability and also limits on what counts as accountability. Dead should not be one of those factors. And without that protection not only does it become one, it discourages and through discouragement, can be an effective tool of prevention of freedom of speech. That is exactly how a terrorist thinks and would apply such a method.

    Online 'who is' privacy, removes that tool for them to execute.

    You cannot decide what you should be liable and accountable for; that's just pretentious and biased.

    Unfortunately for us, freedom of speech shouldn't be thought to be a wildcard that we can pull out at any time, and never expect consequences, because our reality tragically shows us what could happen in certain situations. Freedom of speech, as many other tools, such as technology for instance, or even a simple butter knife, can be abused. Some individuals, probably living in a dream-land, believe that in a perfect world they should be able to say whatever they want and not pay a price for it. Sadly, the world is a dangerous place, and sometimes people do get hurt for sharing their views. What should that teach us? It teaches us that by speaking freely, we make a conscious decision, and that depending on the context in which we exercise this right, it could put us in danger. As I explained earlier, those who were able to put a dent in social inequality did so by fighting their battles head on, with a name, a face, and a loud voice, and not hiding behind a screen or crying from behind the curtains in anonymity.

    Once again, if we decide to be online, if we decide to have our voice heard, if we decide we want others to hear what we have to say, then we should be ready to face consequences, may be them good (approval, positive feedback, endorsement) or bad (putting ourselves at harm's way -- that's the risk today). After all, we face this very danger everyday in our daily life, thinking we are safe in our bubble.

    Online 'who is' disclosure will be a welcome change that might encourage whoever decides to be online and provide any kind of service (from publishing opinions to selling products), to do so by threading more carefully and aware of the consequences their action have around them.

    That really depends on what kind of person you are.

    Not only that. Those are common human traits, which along with many others of course (the good ones), define our humanity. We are complex and multifaceted individuals, and each one of us owns those traits. To say that a given person is never incoherent or has never felt vindictive in his life is a claim that really makes one smile.

    It is not perfect, but it is what we make it out to be.

    Not really. The fact that you enjoy the luxury and privilege of a comfortable life might give you the perception that we can shape the world as we want it to be, but reality says otherwise.

    There is are a lot of us who see things as they unfold... I would say a lot of people have less control in areas that they imagine they do, but also more control in areas that they imagine they don't. Life isn't black or white... It's gray. And where people often have a say and influence, they often do not see it or fail to act.

    Yes, life isn’t gray, although various groups of people everywhere would beg to differ. Some aren’t even able to realize that their extreme, and self-centered views and way of life affect society at large, increasing that social and economic unbalance that defines a struggling existence for too many people.

    And yet, that is what we can control. For example, you speak of the deep rooted social constructs that keep enforcing things. We can control those and break free of those. Thinking you cannot is the trap and is to surrender to the will of others.

    History proves we can do that. In America anyone of color once could not vote, but today who is president? We made that happen. People one by one broke free of "how thing are" and made the world today.

    We make the world we live in. To deny this is to deny reality.

    Yes, we know who the American president is. Let’s see when the representative of an ethnic or social minority will be allowed to advance to a position of power again in the future. Besides, that’s a drop in the ocean, considering that hate crimes, racism, and intolerance for one’s ethnicity, heritage or skin colors are deeply rooted in this society, and keep defining the way of life for many people belonging to such minorities. To ignore this truth is to ignore reality. To speak of this in any other terms or generalizing justifications from the safety of one’s home, only highlights that social unbalance mentioned above, and the privilege that some people have at the detriment of others.

    We have less control than you think. The fact that you lead a comfortable existence, and are able to decide if today you want to eat steak or chicken, or what and where are you going to post online, shouldn’t give you the idea that it’s the same for everybody. Many people don’t have that luxury, and never will, because they don’t have access -- as in, other people don't want them to gain access -- to any tools that might allow them to change their lives. To cry, “we can change the world,” sitting in front a computer and sipping soda isn’t how we change things (unless you are a skilled hacker, that is ;) )

    We do not do everything in our own self interest. If that were always true, we would not be where we are today.

    However, it is in everyone's own self interest to preserve their freedom in manner that would cause them the less harm and place that freedom at the least of risk.

    Keeping online privacy for those who require it does that.

    We don’t do everything in our own self-interest, but we still do plenty to satisfy that need. We live in a system that reinforces and encourages individualism, and puts the individual the center of the universe.

    Online privacy is a myth. The institutions that regulate the Internet and those who provide and give us services through technology are able to know who we are and what we do online at any time, when they choose so. But to prevent consumers to know who they might be dealing with when purchasing online has nothing to do with freedom. It’s for many shady business and those who don’t want to face consequences for their actions or for what they publish, a way to throw the stone and hide the hand.

    Not everyone comes online to be a skeptical for someone else's entertainment or to glorify their existence into some form of stardom.

    There are a lot of people who come online to share their experiences, wisdom, and knowledge. To tell the world what is going on in their part of the world. To speak out against injustice in manner that maybe safer to do so.

    Online privacy makes that possible. In fact, it encourages it. Sure, it may also encourage the occasional jerk to rant off and troll, but we should not remove a positive tool, just because someone can abuse it. Again, Aspirin can be abused, yet it still exist.

    The 1st step in solving any problem is to know and admit you have one... You've outline the problem. The solution is to add more tools to protect people from such violence, not toss those innocent people to the wolves or in shark infested waters during a feeding frenze.

    We have such a tool now...right now... Online 'who is' privacy. Removing it would only serve those who would enjoy causing harm onto others.

    I'm not saying, we shouldn't revise that tool and make it better. Sure, companies that sell products or services online should be brought into the spotlight. But corporations and individuals who need protecting in order to preserve and protect their freedoms, while executing those freedom, should remain private.

    A balance is always important. This new change doesn't offer a balance. It tries to see things black and white in a gray world.

    You're right... When buying a product or service online, you want that company to be listed.

    But not all incorporated entities sell products or services.

    Online consumers have been swimming among sharks for a very long time, and the number of people falling victim of scams and online frauds is constantly increasing. These are the ones who need protection. Website owners have means to protect themselves; it only requires them to take steps to make it happen.

    No one forces you to be online and provide services through your website or forum – you chose to be there, don’t forget that. The price is owning that responsibility and make sure you are accountable for that: people who use your services have a right to know who you are.

    Such as posting on the internet.

    You are proof that is not true.

    I at this very moment do not know your real name. I have no idea where on earth you are. I don't know if you're man or a women, really. I have no idea what you look like.

    You are an anonymous screen name, known as rafix73. You have a cartoon for a face. See, privacy does exist.

    And you're free to speak right now and say anything you wish without the risk of death. And on Socially Uncensored, you would have the freedom to express your thought about gang violence or even how women are mistreated, without the fear of death and I would be free to allow you to speak up on such important issues in a guaranteed group environment without my safety in harm's way.

    Your new policy would certainly change that and I cannot imagine any rational person seeing that as a good thing.

    On the contrary, I am exactly proof of that. We are two forum members posting in an environment that we both don’t own – this isn’t our website. I am Woltlab’s customer, I use their services and products, and they know exactly who I am and where I live. Besides, when and if someone really wants to discover the identity of another internet user, there are plenty of tools and people with specific skills, that allow to do so. Unfortunately, to believe that privacy online exists is just a delusion.

    One should be able to express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas freely, but also be accountable for that. Those who were able to actually put a dent in social inequality often put their name and face in their fight, and of course, many paid dear consequences for it. Yet, they didn't hide in fear of retaliation behind of a computer screen. They owned their actions, their words, their ideals, and actively forward them and fought for it.

    We are at harm’s way all the time, even when we believe to be safe in our bubble. Sometimes people just to go to class, to the library, to church, or to the movie theater, feeling as safe as they can be. I mean, what could ever happen? Sadly, we all know the ghastly and horrific truth.

    To believe that one should be allowed to provide a service online and hide while doing so is just as silly as it is to believe there is privacy online. The majority of online consumers usually don’t have much power against the danger lurking online, and can only rely on caution and watchfulness, just like in real life one should be: alert, careful, and mindful to think before they speak or pay the consequences for it.

    The new policy will benefit many online consumers. It will be good to know who are you are dealing with when using someone’s website. That might be finally the time site owners will realize that they should feel responsible for what they decide to put the net.


    You mentioned humanity, thus we better not forget that being human also means being incoherent, unreliable and vindictive, as well as showing a disposition for impractical idealism, and utopic dreams of a perfect world.

    The world is not perfect, and certainly not what we choose it to be. The luckier ones are able to influence and affect their own lives and those of their loved ones, conducing an existence in relative safety and comfort. This may induce a sense of security that could give them the perception that things could and should be better for everybody. Sadly, many others don’t enjoy the same luxury, and are seldom in control of their lives; those are actually the ones forced to see how things unfold.

    The world is dangerous, but not because humanity (or “us”) wants it to be so. On the contrary, the majority wouldn’t want to live surrounded by threats. Yet, the complete lack of social and economic balance that plagues our society, along with deeply rooted social constructs that keep enforcing it, reduces our world as the war-battered and dangerous place that we know it today. It's shouldn't surprise the notion that if you give people an opportunity to abuse of something, several among them will always take it.

    Having the “freedom” to use (and abuse of) certain tools, shouldn’t give the false idea that people necessarily want to employ them to make things better (unless it’s for their own gain). In our society, people are generally selfish, chiefly because they grow up within a milieu that promotes individualism and selfishness, and puts self-realization as life's main priority. The yearning to be online, to be on display for an audience, to seek gratification and digital approval (see people’s urge to earn as many “likes” as possible, for example) are consequential to such individualism, which are also needs that may come with a price: from mockery and harassment to actual physical violence in some extreme cases, as we learn from the news.

    Those who disagree against new regulations that would require website owners to assume more responsibility should look beyond their own bubble and put themselves in the online consumers’ shoes, and try to realize that internet users might actually benefit from this change. To deny those advantages because of the risk of exposing site owners’ privacy should only encourage them to be more careful, and take extra steps in order to protect themselves from harassment or worse. Asking less disclosure, which goes against the very principle of accountability, only reveals a reluctance to take agency over one’s own actions. The legitimacy of freedom of speech is not under scrutiny here, but those complaints targeting the disclosure policy merely indicate that there may be a desire to continue throwing stones and hiding the hand.

    We face dangers every day, everywhere. Anything could happen to all of us at any given moment. This doesn’t mean we should lock ourselves in the basement for the fear of it. Those that care about their safety, usually do whatever is necessary to not get in trouble, and seek direct and indirect ways to protect themselves. Those are the people who try to be reasonable and think before they speak, because they know that there might be consequences for what they do and say. This is how life works. For example, if you happen to cross paths with someone you don’t like, and acting upon your freedom of speech, you decide to call him out (not offend him, mind you), you should expect a reaction, which could be in tone with your words or even go overboard – people are unpredictable. You chose to voice your dislike for him, then you should own it and be ready for the consequences - you must be accountable for it. Reluctance toward disclosure would be like speaking out against that rival in our example above while hiding behind a door, with the excuse that you are both exercising your freedom of speech and protecting your anonymity.

    Despite puerile idealism and utopic dreams of a better world, we are (and always should be) held accountable for our actions. No one is arguing that people should die for speaking freely, of course. To be accountable for what one sells, publishes, produces, and writes on the net also means that one should be aware of the risks of putting themselves out there. Today, there are clear and present dangers lurking around us and on the net that don’t care about idealistic views on life and freedom. This is the reason I mentioned that those people who make a conscious decision to be online should also take necessary steps to protect themselves, instead of crying that they are being stripped of their dear anonymity.

    Privacy online does not really exist. To fight and ignore this basic truth is just silly. Stomping feet and crying that the world shouldn’t be so unfair, and continue to profess that freedom of speech must come without repercussions clearly shows denial concerning our troubled reality.

    This is a controversial topic because there are many factors that need to be taken into account: privacy, legitimacy, freedom/freedom of speech, and understanding that publishing anything on the Internet or a website of any kind also means assuming certain responsibilities and be ready for the consequences.

    It would be wonderful if we lived in a danger-free world, in which we could all be out in open, even online, and not fear retributions, harassment, and retaliation for speaking our mind and share our opinions freely. Alas, our world is a dangerous place; if we are not careful enough, and don't make conscious decisions to avoid those dangers whenever possible, we might get in trouble.

    However, it is difficult to balance and regulate upon one's desire for online presence and safety. As for most things in life, our actions trigger reactions. For instance, if we enjoy social networking, and don't mind having our life on public display, we go for it – it’s a conscious decision, and we are aware (or want?) others to know what we are up to and where we are most of our time. If we decide to launch a blog/site, in which we "simply" want to speak freely and without filters, we must expect the consequences – good or bad that may be, and this doesn't mean one would want to become a victim. Thinking otherwise or believing that we should have no bounds and be allowed to speak without filters, and never pay a price, only falls into juvenile and idealistic wishful thinking that isn't in touch with reality.

    It is important to notice that threats or harassment originating from one’s online activity aren’t the only dangers lurking on the Internet – that is, website owners aren’t the only potential victims here. Actually, there is a big presence of “predators” that falls into their category: scammers, spammers, creators of phishing sites, and any other ill-intended online activity originating from a website also represents a constant danger for those who simply use the net as customers, users, members, etc. If you decide to put yourself out there on the net as a blogger, forum owner, editor, or as an individual that wants their voice to be heard, they must be aware of what that entails.

    As a result, those who visit your digital portal should be allowed to know exactly who you are. You decided to be there in the first place, don’t forget it. You decided to launch a certain service, blog, site, forum, or online business consciously (no one forced you to do it), and you should take the necessary actions and precautions in order to feel safe while you do it. Whoever stumbles upon your site, needs to feel reassured they are actually dealing with a legit business or a well-intended individual. Putting a website online is as much a responsibility as it is driving a car or running a business; you are out there, and your actions also affect those around you (other drivers, customers, your forum members, etc.).

    If people want to be "free" to use and be on the Internet as they please, they should also be aware of the significance and magnitude of it. I find it silly the idea of someone who thinks that it’s their prerogative to speak without filters on the net, while demanding to remain hidden for fear of being harassed, because sadly, in today's world, it’s like asking for it. This is how bad things are nowadays, and there isn’t much we can do.

    The world is a wicked place, we should know better before we step forward and make ourselves possible targets. For this reason, whoever decides to have a site on the net, should always thread carefully, and make sure to be recognizable and traceable, while protecting their own personal safety as much as they can. To expect laws to protect us while we decide to say whatever we want online, it’s allowed – yes – but also a bit pretentious wanting to do in complete anonymity. Being online is a risky business.

    Never said it was "impossible" to hotlink, only impossible to add text next to it.

    Not sure how you succeeded... Except that you click on yours twice. Something your average person will not do.

    Still a bug

    Yeah, I was typing fast, I meant that's not impossible to wrap text around the image. I tried many times the way I showed in the video and it always worked. I succeeded at the first try because instinctively I clicked on the image after I added it. A very small bug, I'm sure it'll be an easy fix ;)

    This problem doesn't happen in all cases. If you simply add the image and just select the wrapping after it or if you add the image and clicking on edit and close the popup, the issue won't occur. Sure, it seems to be a small glitch, but nothing that really makes hotlinking images impossible ;)

    Externer Inhalt youtu.be
    Inhalte von externen Seiten werden ohne Ihre Zustimmung nicht automatisch geladen und angezeigt.
    Durch die Aktivierung der externen Inhalte erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass personenbezogene Daten an Drittplattformen übermittelt werden. Mehr Informationen dazu haben wir in unserer Datenschutzerklärung zur Verfügung gestellt.

    I kept trying to politely bow out of it, but I didn't want to be rude and ignore you.

    Politely bow out of it? It looked more liked you were trying to finds ways to disagree, and continue the discussion ;)

    But oh well, ideas are like underwear; each one has their own (and if one doesn't or share theirs, it's another issue :P )

    Can you be a little more specific ? The site layout will be offered in multiple languages, but the official language will be English (see rule #3). Although I am going to have to translate the rules.

    I mean the forum rules you just posted. You mentioned and showed that you will provide a translation of the layout -- cool, that means you intend to provide a comfortable environment for those who have their system set to other languages (at least those in the list). But what about the actual rules? I don't expect you to translate everything in forum, of course -- I already know you intend to promote development and discussions using English. But then I wondered if it's the case, for the sake of clarity and intentions, to provide a translation of those very rules that everyone should understand and abide to. So, you are saying that you will, and that's good.

    Or for it and against political or social correctness... ie... Giving into the freedom to do as you please, so long as you're not intentionally hurting anyone.

    ...and to always make a conscious effort to be aware of, respect, and try to understand other cultures ;)

    @Aslan by the way, in your site, when you select Italian language, you will notice that the terms of use variable isn't translated. It shows wcf.footer.menu.termsOfUse. You may want to change that in Termini d'uso or Termini d'utilizzo.

    Eventually, loanwords are adapted into English. Thus becoming a part of it. That's how English has evolved over time.

    As I mentioned above, neither am I against loanwords, nor do I fight the idea that they are being included in the English language. My focus is on the general unawareness and ignorance concerning how this process actually takes place. It is sometimes mildly amusing to discover the ways words borrowed from your language are misused, but it is more annoying when English native speakers want to lecture you about spelling, meanings, and even "correct" the pronunciation of those very words, totally oblivious they are borrowed terms :rolleyes:

    This has less to do with language evolution, and more with ignorance-fueled misconception of what lies beyond one's own culture and language. The fact that they are adopted words, it shouldn't make one think that it's a done deal not worth intellectual inquiry, which easily leads to cultural acceptance, tolerance, and openness, something we can agree this country is still lacking a bit, wouldn't you say? ;)

    Again, you're using absolutes. And as such, taking what I've said out of context. Nothing I have said was meant as an absolute for life... I was speaking only of language. Concerning language, you really need to go with the flow and accept that it is fluid and forever changing, evolving, and growing.

    If you want to talk about life... I would tell you that most things in life are not absolute. It would be nice if things were black and white, but the majority of life is gray.

    You are generalizing about language, which as all things in life is never advisable. Language evolves and devolves, too, changing over time. But the sagging of educational standards, social constructs that encourage individualism and general selfishness, along with with the clear debasement of popular culture we are witnessing today, only decrease people's ability to construct sound grammatical sentences, and mind anything beyond their linguistic, cultural, and social borders. In sum, loanwords misuse is a symptom, not a cause -- a symptom I am describing.

    Welcome to humanity. I'm not saying it's right, just that is how things are. You can learn to accept it or be mad about it. I rather just go with the flow and watch things unfold. A lot less stress that way, usually.

    (Pick and choose your battles)

    Going with the flow and watch things unfold could also backfire -- history, again, teaches us that too.

    I am not mad at all about "how things are," but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be curious to find out how language works and why, as in this case, herd mentality affecting linguistic patterns and social constructs that encourage people to ignore what lies beyond their perception of own language and culture. Interesting field of study that one, I assure you ;)

    We're also not speaking old English either, but that doesn't make old English invalid. Just less common.

    Loanword as you wish to call them are still valid and accepted. Who is to say what is right or wrong concerning language? The civilization in which you inhabit.

    But I'll end there... Because I think we're having 2 different discussions....

    Old English is still English. Pizza, lasagna, marinara, per se, macchiato, opera, yoga, concerto, and all those many terms that the English language actively borrows from other tongues, are academically called and recognized as "loan phrases" and " loan words." It is not a self-made term.

    You fail to understand that I am not pointing fingers concerning language adoption; I am simply disclosing the implicit ignorance in regards of those loan phrases that people use everyday, such as "per se." And yes, we are apparently having two conversations: you cite flow and alleged common sense to generalize and justify herd mentality as being a good thing, and which you claim makes automatically things right, even in language. I am only saying that people are generally unaware of loanwords; a trend that reveals we live in a society that for the most part lacks interest beyond its own language and culture. A shame, really.

    Common sense and what information is available, makes things a lot easier...
    People in general are funny... They wish to simplify the complicated, while also making the easy, complicated. So counter productive is humanity at times.

    In your argument you're comparing Apples with Oranges. To be more precise, you're comparing absolutes against fluid nature. That is where I think you're failing to understand language, which is fluid in nature and not an absolute.

    The origin of a word may have historical value, but it is often irrelevant to the actual application of what is widely accepted for the use and understanding of a word or phrase. For better or for worse, that is the foundation of language.

    There is nothing sensible in ignorance and commonalities. Generalization only display laziness or the lack of willingness to know more, to be more aware. Simplification implies previous knowledge of the original more complex terms one wants to diminish and clarify. In this case, there is complete ignorance of the original terms - no simplification is actually taking place. Once again, it's laziness and not common sense.

    Language is fluid, sure, but it still has its structure; without it, we would all be speaking unintelligible gibberish and wouldn't be able to understand one another. I am not making comparisons, but providing clear examples of the general lack of awareness concerning loan phrases, which is widespread and the whole point of the conversation: most people ignore the original words they use everyday, and often believe those terms belong to their own language. It's simple as that.

    The application of a word is not in discussion here, otherwise we could try to understand why, "ain't" despite being a very effective verbal contraction that can help expressing meanings quickly is still tagged as incorrect and improper. If language were that fluid, we both would be using "it ain't right" in this discussion, but we aren't ;)

    Remember the focus here: people's common ignorance and laziness concerning loanwords. What may be widely accepted by an unaware majority does not make it right or correct - history painfully teaches us that.

    The history of every language, everywhere, throughout time proves that statement incorrect.

    I'd say that this is a rather incorrect statement. First, because you cannot know the evolution of every language, but you do tend to generalize and make it universal truth ;)

    Common just means that something is only widely adopted, a trend, as I explained it earlier.

    Also, I am not denying or fighting language evolution per se, that'd be foolish. I am simply pointing out the "common" lack of awareness concerning words people use everyday, which belong to other languages. "Per say" is just one of the many amusing examples. I met people who would strongly argue that "pizza" was an English term for an Italian-born food :rolleyes:
    So, according to this argument, having millions of people convinced that such a statement is true should make it correct, am I right? I mean, if people commonly think that "pizza" is an English word, they must be correct...

    Since we're speaking of food, let's pick the term "marinara," which is not a sauce, as many think, but a way of making pasta > "pasta alla marinara" > seafood pasta. Do you see the misunderstanding there? And this has less to do with language evolution, and more to do with habits and ignorance of original words and phrases. I could cite you plenty of anecdotes such the one above.

    Not making an effort to acknowledge other languages is a "common" and wide-spread mistakes that I see people making everyday around here. And that often exacerbates misunderstanding and cultural division, as if things weren't bad enough here already in that regards.

    This isn't about being grammar police - as you corrected yourself - but pointing out a linguistic trend based on ignorance of original words.