Tachanka

me neither, i just wanted to shitpost 😩

the r-word went from a casual invective to bannable offense

that's perfect proof of what I was talking about. Popular usage changed the meaning of that word from a medical description, to a casual invective, to a slur. You can see charities and such from the 1960s dedicated to helping "r word" children. Dictionaries have been updated to this effect too:

CW: slur

boomer isn't a slur and that's what we were discussing

you were just justifying 70 years of sanctions based on the false narrative that north korea "started" the war. you must not have read anything I said because I was describing the US military occupation which started BEFORE the war

Lazy NATOpedia understanding of history.

You start the story in the middle because you've been taught that way. Korea was occupied by the Japanese from 1910 to 1945. Kim Il Sung gained fame as an anti-Japanese guerilla fighter. Korea was sliced in half after WW2. A soviet occupied half, and a US-occupied half. Here's how the Koreans were greeted respectively by the Americans and the Soviets, who were temporary allies in WW2.

The Americans and the Soviets naturally couldn't agree on a trusteeship because the Americans wanted to force private enterprise and fascist Japanese collaborators onto the Koreans and the Soviets wanted Korea to be governed by the Korean working class (or, as imperialists call it, totalitarianism)

[Content warning: various atrocities]

The US instituted a US-backed military dictatorship in 1945, enabled that military dictatorship to begin executing socialists, anarchists, and Communists, placed people who had collaborated with the Japanese into positions of power, etc. The US-led South provoked the North with artillery strikes and armed incursions for 2 years leading up to the Korean war. When the "North" Koreans finally responded to this American occupation, the "Korean War" is said to have started (according to the Americans, who always start the story late), the American air force leveled every single city in the North, did not care about civilian casualties on either side, burned villages with flamethrowers, committed germ warfare, bombed schools, hospitals, dams, etc. And infantry committed sexual assault and executions on civilians. The fascist maniac General Douglas MacArthur (who Americans still worship as a "good man" in much the same fashion Americans accuse "North" Koreans of being brainwashed) wanted to nuke the entire 38th parallel but was thankfully stopped. After LOSING MISERABLY (as Americans always do in these kinds of wars, all they can do is get a high kill/death ratio by murdering civilians, they never actually achieve their strategic objectives) they continued to maintain a military occupation of the South (against the wishes of most South Koreans) LONG after the Soviets and PRC left North Korea, and they continue starving the North Koreans with sanctions for 70 years so they cannot achieve economic independence, and they blame the consequences of these sanctions on the "inferiority of socialism" while injecting billions of into the South Korean bourgeois system to keep it afloat and turn it into a giant theme park for US imperialist soldiers and sleezy businessmen to commit sexual assault on local women. Fuck off.

(you will naturally call this history "biased" because it tells the truth instead of devolving into lazy "both sides are equally bad" algorithmic assessment or the even stupider "actually the koreans themselves invaded their own country" narrative)

Burger Reich troops should GTFO of South Korea btw. They're not wanted there. They're fascist thieves and unwelcome occupiers and regularly get drunk and commit atrocities against locals

who knows

yeah i didn't post this because I cared about the playlist, but because I found the comment underneath it interesting

yeah, it's hard

you can correct a teenager or whatever, and they may or may not listen to you, but if they and the rest of their generation keep using a word how they understand it, then the word essentially changes definition, and the people who write the dictionaries are forced to update their dictionaries to reflect popular usage. This is how it's always worked, and it's why an English dictionary from 1600 has a lot of different meanings than an English dictionary from 2023. It's why you can see a word often has way different meaning in its etymology than it does from its current use. Even important words. not tryna give you a hard time. I've just been told that, if people collectively start using a word differently, it can decouple from its etymology. I can think of plenty of examples

• "naughty" in the 1300s used to mean you didn't have stuff, i.e. you had naught. You were impoverished. Then it came to mean that you didn't have morals (in a serious way), then it came to mean you were simply badly behaved (i.e. not in a serious way, like a child), then it started to get associated with its various sexual meanings in the 1860s.
• "Spinster" used to mean a woman who spins thread. Now it is almost exclusively used to refer to an unmarried woman, whether or not she spins thread for a living.
• "guy" in English used to mean "a grotesque or poorly dressed person", and was associated with effigies of Guy Fawkes that protestants used to burn. Only in the US in the 1800s did it start to refer to men in general, and now, in modern times, we often use it as a gender neutral term when applied to a group: "you guys wanna get lunch?" can often be directed at an intersex group.
• "senile" used to simply mean old, not necessarily suffering from dementia
• in old english "meat" used to refer to solid food in general, and not specifically animals.
• awful used to mean "worthy of awe" (whether good or bad) and not simply "tremendously bad" i.e. the "awful power of God"
• "silly" used to mean "happy, fortuitous, prosperous" then later came to mean "innocent, harmless, pitiable," then finally came to mean "weak, foolish, lacking in reason"

so if a bunch of teenagers decide that "boomer" means anyone 20 years older than them, then that's fine. They'll just have to accept becoming boomers themselves eventually

WTYP. Teenagers who haven't learned their history are prone to get duped into thinking this.

language changes over time due to how people use it. definitions are decided this way.

EDIT: This can be frustrating when we expect consistency or scientific precision

it's amazing to see. Just for fun I stabilized, cropped, and turned it into a looping gif.

I see increasingly "boomer" used to refer to anyone over 40. It seems the word is getting semantically decomposed from its original meaning referring to a specific generation to a new meaning referring to any age group 40-70 years old, regardless of when they were born. For instance, a Gen X friend of mine was complaining that her teenage niece called her a boomer.