Originally posted by Gregory
This is because langages change. Word meanings change. It amazes me that anyone would be upset by this.
Language evolution isn't something I am debating, it's phrase creationism. Making things up out of absolutely nothing. The reason "Emo" is used in it's various wrong forms today is because a few journalists decided to stick the word to an inapplicable item, and because everyone (MySpace generation mostly) was too lazy or young to research, they assumed it was what the guy said it was.
It didn't evolve into what it is through change, it came about through one idiot trying to be falsely innovative.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
So you are saying it is incorrect because it cannot be traced back to an original meaning? So a word has to have a history before you class it as a real word?
Why is it when I say something, you ask me if I'm saying something entirely different? Is it a genuine lack of understanding or are you just trying to be difficult?
I'm saying it's incorrect because it makes absolutely no sense at all, no definition given by anyone who uses the modern, incorrect "Emo" term is realistic.
"It means someone's being emotional.", so then apply it to happy people, angry people. It's pathetic, and the sooner people realise it, the better. As for it's use to describe a style, that style has nothing to do with emotion, so why the word "emotional" would be applicable is another non-point. It's just a useless term that people have been conditioned to use and simply accept because they lack the ability or mindpower to make their own, correct choice.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
And the modern Chav is totally different to the "original meaning".
I never said it wasn't, I said it could be traced back. Green Day are totally different to real punk bands (Because they're not one), but the fact that if you get technical enough you can trace their influence back is...well...fact.
The same applies to the term "Chav".
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why is it when I say something, you ask me if I'm saying something entirely different? Is it a genuine lack of understanding or are you just trying to be difficult?I'm saying it's incorrect because it makes absolutely no sense at all, no definition given by anyone who uses the modern, incorrect "Emo" term is realistic.
"It means someone's being emotional.", so then apply it to happy people, angry people. It's pathetic, and the sooner people realise it, the better. As for it's use to describe a style, that style has nothing to do with emotion, so why the word "emotional" would be applicable is another non-point. It's just a useless term that people have been conditioned to use and simply accept because they lack the ability or mindpower to make their own, correct choice.
I'm asking different things because you keep on repeating yourself without actually elaborating on any points so I'm trying to make you.
Who says the derogotary deffinition of Emo is "It means someone's being emotional." I for one have never heard that deffinition used. It's more about their whole apperance and self-harm thing. Well, where I live anyway.
Originally posted by FeceMan
What the hell.Who gives a flying ****? "Emo" is now used to describe whiny, bitchy attention whores who cry about their lives over the Internet, usually through blogs.
"Molest" used to mean "bother." It still does. But "molest" used in normal conversation means "to make indecent sexual advances."
I'm inclined to agree.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I'm asking different things because you keep on repeating yourself without actually elaborating on any points so I'm trying to make you.
We've been over this countless times, and I have clearly explained my stance in this thread. So whether it's you not wanting to accept that it's your blind following of a trend word that leaves you lacking points, or you really ARE just doing it for the sake of it, I don't know, but don't try to act as if I haven't explained myself.
The reason I keep repeating myself is because you keep saying; "You're saying...", and then something that I am, infact, not saying.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Who says the derogotary deffinition of Emo is "It means someone's being emotional." I for one have never heard that deffinition used. It's more about their whole apperance and self-harm thing. Well, where I live anyway.
The fact that the word apparantly has a stupid applicable use that differs from place to place proves my point.
The definition I explained is because idiots think "Emo" is short for emotional. That's not what it means, and it's stupid to call cutters, "Emos". It has nothing to do with being emotional, or that would apply to everyone.
Furthermore, why are you again bringing up appearance? This is why I repeat myself. You don't grasp a point.
Originally posted by FeceMan
What the hell.Who gives a flying ****? "Emo" is now used to describe whiny, bitchy attention whores who cry about their lives over the Internet, usually through blogs.
A) Nobody gives a flying f*ck, and that's the problem.
B) I know what it's now used to describe, I'm simply protesting the idea, successfully I might add. This ain't my first ro-day-o.
Originally posted by FeceMan
"Molest" used to mean "bother."
Go on...
Originally posted by FeceMan
It still does.
What a shiny penny you are. Continue.
Originally posted by FeceMan
But "molest" used in normal conversation means "to make indecent sexual advances."
...which can clearly be traced back to "Bother", as indecent sexually advancing someone is bothering them. Hence it being evolution of the term, not entire recreation of. So that settles the little language evolution argument.
You said yourself, you don't care, so I wouldn't opt to argue against someone who actually knows what he's on about.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I'm inclined to agree.
He's proved my point and doesn't know it, so...you're not really gaining ground by agreeing with him.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...which can clearly be traced back to "Bother", as indecent sexually advancing someone is bothering them. Hence it being evolution of the term, not entire recreation of. So that settles the little language evolution argument.
You said yourself, you don't care, so I wouldn't opt to argue against someone who actually knows what he's on about.-AC
Feel free to oppose my argument successfully then, Spoon. You haven't done so yet.
All you've done is asked questions that I've answered in ways, and with arguments that you dislike. You can't argue this debate because you simply don't know enough about it.
That's not a diss, it's just a fact. As for broken records, it's still playing a tune that drowns out whatever you're bringing to the table.
-AC
I'm going to go ahead and answer the question, well what I think about "emo" kids, the word people have attached to them, not what it actually means, is that they think they're so misunderstood. Everywhere I turn (in my school anyways) I hear kids giving their last will testiment, "No one cares, but I won't be here tomorrow" The next day, they're there, saying it again. When did being alive become so difficult? They think they're so misunderstood, no, we understand we all know life sucks at times, but we all stick it out, and sometimes some good comes out of it. The "emo's" real problems are THEY HAVE NO PROBLEMS. They think everyone feels so sorry for them, they're crying out for attention, that's all.
I has a brilliant idea.
Let's pretend for a moment--just a moment, mind you--that a word can have multiple meanings. Sometimes these meanings are completely contradictory to the original word itself. "Emo" happens to be one of these words.
However, "emo" shouldn't feel lonely because there are so many words that can be added to the list:
Sick, twisted, sweet, cool, fuzz, slip, gay...and that's just the tip of the figurative iceberg.