Fist of Righteousness:rejected:

[Oeconomist]

I think that regex or a look-up table and CSS5 should be used to create a fist that would be thrown by the display into the eye or nose of commenters who use respellings such as “thicc” for “thick”.

 

[Teasday]

Feel free to write one for yourself

 

[LowSanity]

@Oeconomist it's a slang m8, do you have issues with ppl typing afeared or 'tis as well?

 

[Oeconomist]

@LowSanity—

Ugh. [ol]No display will throw a punch.
CSS5 does not exist and is unlikely ever to exist, because CSS is now being developed in a highly modular way.[/ol] From those points, you should have been able to infer whether I were serious. Moreover, [ol]The word “afear” is not slang; it is Old English that has survived as regional dialect. The derivative “afeared” is regional dialect.
The word “'tis” is also not slang; it is not Old English, but it is archaic.
Slang in general is neither good nor bad. But there is slang that is only used by jerks (such as when “ho” is generically used for women); so a string isn't somehow legitimized by being slang.
Regardless of whether one uses slang or not, vocatives should be off-set by commas. [/ol]

 

[LowSanity]

@Oeconomist I'm not gonna bother to look up stuff typed in comments. Explaining the joke makes is it less funny. You should have just collect your lolcows and have a good time.

 

[Oeconomist]

@LowSanity—

Would you really need to look-up whether a computer display can actually throw a punch? (Hackers would have used your mobile phone set to beat you up a long time ago if they could.)

Of course explaining the joke makes it less funny. When someone needs an explanation for an obvious joke, “ugh” is a natural response.

 

[LowSanity]

@Oeconomist So it was supposed to be literal punch throw, not some animation.
I guess i added logic to it.

 

[DjAlexDubCheck]

@LowSanity I too imagined it was a request for a punch animation 😁
and I was like "why not ?"

 

[Meybi]

@Oeconomist you need to find something better to do with your time, maybe watch some THICC ASS GIRLS or somethin idk, k bra? got it mane? understand jefe?

 

[dankdevice]

for what it's worth i think that thicc has a different contextual meaning than thick

if i described someone as physically "thick", i would take that to mean "thick like a brick" or stout, maybe "solidly built"
however, calling someone "thicc" has more sexual connotations, i would say "curvy" or "well endowed" would be more related

so yeah i think most people would agree the meaning of "thicc" has evolved enough to be distinctly different from "thick"

 

[Oeconomist]

@dankdevice—

One of the problems with the idea that “thicc” has a meaning different from “thick” is that one also observes “fucc” for “fuck”, “succ” for “suck”, &c.

The recent slangy of “thick” emerged within the black community as a reference to plumpness, to overweight, and to obesity by those who found such desirable in women. After that, we got a variation on the Problem of the Chinese Tattoo, in which many outside a linguistic group ineptly attempt to adopt its vocabulary, in an effort to be seen as part of an in-group. So “thick” and “thicc” are now used by obliviously awkward White and Asian guys to mean desirable.

Maybe someday, by a similar process, “zhīfáng”, respelled as “sheefong”, will be English slang meaning beautiful, but educated people will think first of fatness.

 

[dankdevice]

@Oeconomist yeah it's not like that's literally already a thing that's happened or anything, oh wait...

sounds like you just have a problem with slang.

and also, calling people who use slang uneducated is somewhat wack

:edit:
calling it now: in 20 years thicc will be in the dictionary

 

[Oeconomist]

@dankdevice—

First, I didn't say that people who use slang are uneducated. I said that people can be uneducated in their use of the slang of another culture. People using the linguistic forms of another culture shouldn't just guess as to what those forms mean. Those who are not themselves from African-American culture but attempting to adopt those forms should not just guess as to what those forms mean.

In that context, most of the rest of your comment can be seen to be especially foolish. And your triumphant pirouette about the word “phat” is just ridiculous prancing, since we're not arguing over whether slang sometimes finds its way into the standard vocabulary.

What I'll call now is that you'll forget your prediction if “thicc” hasn't found its way into the dictionary in 20 years, and this thread will be long gone.

 

[gomichandesu]

Man all I wanted was to say language is cool and you ain't the language police but whatever I'll just delete this

 

[Oeconomist]

@gomichandesu—

The total vocabulary of some languages is larger than the vocabulary of any given speaker or writer in that language. The total vocabulary of the English language is many times larger than the working vocabulary of any of its speakers or writers. Thus, no aggregation of opinions of a general public can be the determinant of the meanings of words except in-so-far as those opinions defer to the decisions of some smaller group or groups. (And attempts to aggregate preferences are always problematic.)

Further, if one could and did determine the meanings of words simply by surveys of the general public, then innovations would be grossly implausible, because a majority would never move at once together. The evolution of language actually undermines populist theories of meaning.

This thread has been dragged far away from a joke about a feature supposedly to be added to the site. Expect an administrator to lock the thread if it continues in its present direction.