>Which terms do you gravitate towards
Cringe.

I don't really have much reservation towards anything besides terms that in need of immediate life-cessation subhumans from kf sites use, so I just normally go with the flow and post however I feel I want to. But isn't that kinda how everyone posts? Serious when you want to be and not when you don't.

>>119054
>>119056
Yeah this stuff is abysmal and it quickly allows you to gauge the quality of a community, so in that way it's useful I suppose. Yeah, slang changes and such, but this stuff is loaded with judgment and angst.
To me "banter" is something creative, so few people qualify as partaking in it since most of it is templates and other established jokes. Oh, that guy is a fan of Hobby A so let's go with Joke C with a little of Joke D. Oh, Country B huh, yeah, I'll call him Word C. Oh, it's such hilarious banter!

The 'countryballing' thing is much rarer than it used to be

>>119061
Its honestly for the best, it was a reddit kind of thing.

>>119049
>Do you think people has lost
Cringe ESL needs to touch grass instead of malding over based zoomiebros making boomcuties seethe with their kino vocabularies and dabbing on the dictionary simps like chad kings tbh fam I'm smh at this dilating betasister's schizo oldfag LARPing frfr no cap.

>>119063
Kino is already kind of old hat

>>119060
>>119061
After the pandemic, it went from "we're so much better than you" to "we suck but you suck too". I don't know if people just got tired of stereotype based flame wars or how many governments were caught swimming naked caused that though

>>119060
Agreed to a high degree, and it's exactly what OP was talking about.
I avoid all trendy pejorative terms of any stripe for the same reason, its novelty is supposed to come across as cool and inventive but it's just a copy and paste. Whether it's midwit or >>119056 or whatever FOTM insult some cool kid came up with, I shall not type it as anything but an external reference to someone else's debased utterances.
I do like >>119063 since it's going well beyond the norm(s).
>>119064
At least half of it is several years old at this point, even the extended suffixes.
>>119068
It's definitely older than the pandemic, post-ironic single-word replies of that vein are at least half a decade old. Check out this 2018 thread:
https://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/2214903

>>119069
That's not what I meant, I was meaning that posters are demoralized about their own countries more often so flame about the topic less

>>119049
I know it's very off topic, but dont you think the emotionless sex in IHNMBIMS was weird and out of place?

>>119058
I find it weird how stagnant a lot of that crowd's slang can be. I still see them using terminology from like 2015.

you better believe i saw that

It was a self destructing post, not a deletion

>>119060
Weeaboo thirdie detected.

>>119049
I don't like filtering myself when the first words that come to my mind happen to be kohai lingo just to accomodate nerds online. Their use doesn't necessarily make a post low quality and hating acronyms and being a grammar nazi on the internet has always been stupid.
Posting winRAW,Fail,Epic,umad, etc. Doesn't hit the same anymore. The reason not to use them is to avoid being strawmanned or dismissed as a kohai when you're posting a valid opinion.
They grow on me after a while, I like "glazing" and "gas"(to say something is "fake").
It's easier to call something mid or peak without elaboring much sometimes.

>>119049
funny face

I don't like 'black people speak'.

Rather than focusing on the specific words that people use, I think the more interesting aspect is the message.
Regardless of whether you post "u mad" or "seethe", you are really saying the same thing.
Sometimes, you think that calling everybody a retard is an appropriate contribution to a discussion, and sometimes, you think that being more elaborate might be apt.

I do think that there is a change in how commonly people fall into mindless catchphrase insults, repeated ad nauseam. But it's probably a mistake to blame the words. The same level of quality exchange could be achieved with different terminology. I have a variety of baseless theories to explain why everything sucks now (according to my subjective experience). I'll spare you the drivel.

My point is this: If I didn't feel like the new internet slang came with a new attitude toward online discussion, I would probably be more open to it. I reject its use because I feel besieged by people who do not respect the concept of online communities or fringe hobbies, even while they are participating in an online community dedicated to such a fringe hobby.

I don't really use any internet speech. I'm too arrogant for that kind of thing.

I use whatever vocabulary is expected for whoever I'm interacting with, when in Rome and all that. I say based/cringe/cope/better besneed it feeder etc. when in company with my friends who also say them; though I also feel my sanity slipping away and I become a drooling self depreciating retard, but it's still fun. When I'm on /jp/ or wherever I'm typically more polite and call people fags and try to make quality posts. Though across the board I've stopped abusing the quote function. Why greentext when I can longpost. When it comes to others, you have people using memespeak buzzword soup in their posts, words like 'chud' that nobody uses in any serious or funposting context and is an easy flag to spot trolls and thread shitters with; especially in places where memewords are frowned on.
Sometimes I think people can't take bants, but that's kinda always been the case. Some people just don't know how to take it easy.

>>119083
I dunno, sometimes you can judge posts on buzzwords alone. More often than not people who use garbage terms like >>119085 mentioned don't have a message to get across other than "you're a bitch for doing/liking X". It's genuine mental illness, a shit attitude made worse by people who can't just step away and relax.
But I agree that newer words come with certain associations and contextual baggage that I'd rather avoid.
>I'll spare you the drivel.
Go ahead and post it, I like walls of text.

>>119086
Yes, use of buzzwords can generally tell you quite a bit about what to expect. But that's buzzwords in general, I think. If people have something to say, they will usually try to signal that.

>Go ahead and post it, I like walls of text.
I shouldn't have used the word "theories"; "drivel" describes it better.
It's really just a sad man coming up with explanations for things he thinks used to be different based on unreliable memories. It's not too long to share. It's meaningless. And given the stream-of-consciousness style of my previous post, that should tell you something. I apologize for making it seem like I had something interesting that I was holding back.

>>119087
Apology accepted.

>>119082
my problem with ebonics and ¨tumblr speak¨(?) is how it reads like something you're supposed to listen to irl. For example, someone adding ¨nigga¨ at the beginning of their post to give it a certain tone is like??? those buzzwords and phrases you see tweens mashing they keyboards use????
It also depends on how much they force them, I want posts to be read like they were made by real people.

>>119102
that's a weird complaint, why shouldn't someone's writing reflect their regular speech? how's that forced?

>>119103
typing ebonics and other regional and actually hearing them said are two different things, something that is funny or light-hearted written can come off strange and sometimes offensive depending on who is verbally saying them

but this is from an ESL perspective, English teaching specifically warns against trying to pick up local slang, and it's not just black burgerspeak either, another common example given to language learnings is trying to use Singaporean English slang often causing faux pas. Ditto with more isolated English speakers like the Welsh

>>119091
I was under the impression that dilate was only really used by chantards and KF troll types.

>>119106
>>119107
but that's not a problem with the native speaker who's writing the post for other natives to read, the one who has a problem is a third party that'll go on to use slang in the wrong way or context at a later date
the native isn't to blame for a learner being bad at learning
it doesn't explain this statement either:
>It also depends on how much they force them, I want posts to be read like they were made by real people.

>>119109
It's more about cultural context was what I meant. People get defensive about foreigners using their 'dialect', even if correctly.
E.g. a Dutch person using AAVE

>>119110
they get defensive about it being used badly or inappropriately because bad imitations tend to do that no matter the topic
when it's used well it can even be flattering that someone took the time to learn it so well
your complaint is still that people shouldn't speak in nonstandard ways, which is nonsense

>>119112
Standardization is good. Wiping out dialects and lesser languages would make the world a better, more efficient place.

>>119113
it doesn't work like that
a language isn't a scientific standard or a protocol, it's an inherently unstable system and different spoken sociolects/dialects/ethnolects would arise and turn into unintelligible languages after some generations
as it happened even with standardized ones like classical latin, arabic, chinese, and sanskit
but you'd also want to wipe out "inefficient" species, wouldn't you...

>>119115
Sanskrit doesn't count and you know it as the religious bodies its related to standardize it these days through teaching as almost no one speaks it natively anymore.
Its not as controlled as Pali, but its not the same as Arabic and Chinese at all!

Wipe out all English that is not RP.

>>119116
yes it does count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastra
even if it weren't like the other three the point would still hold

>>119115
They only arise through isolation from the mainstream. Exposure to a global audience would normalize any changes. There's a reason so many languages have gone the way of the dodo.

>>119115
Not sure what happened here...
I agree that language shouldn't be standardized. When I said forced I was thinking of anons who usually behave normal and then use ebonics (beginning their post with nigga) to signal they are shitposting or when someone says repetitive phrases a bot could write using them like "he just like me frfr" regardless of who is posting them. Same with the sassy teenage girls calling you a sweet summer child when it is Wednesday my dude. I don't hate people who use both, it depends on the context.
>why shouldn't someone's writing reflect their regular speech?
Eh, honestly this is just a minor arbitrary pet peeve of mine, like, what is the need to write like this? That's rethorical obviously. I use ellipses often, look above.

>>119120
mere exposure doesn't kill languages, it's the power dynamics behind them. it's not the hegemonic ones dying left and right, it's the ones who couldn't protect themselves
despite all that has happened to them after three centuries of subjugation under the spanish and two hundred more years of fuckery, mayan, nahuan, aymaran, quechuan, and guaraní languages continue to have millions of speakers each
hundreds of millions of spanish speakers themselves are constantly in contact with the neutral pan-latin american variety that nobody actually speaks, and arabs all across their slice of the world learn classical arabic due to its formal role but can't use it even with the help of mass education
there is no permanent mainstream to cling to, as did after latin come french, italian, and german, as do the different strata of japanese kango bear witness to shifts in chinese politics and culture
nor are people irresistibly attracted to predominant speech, whenever someone chooses to write in their own vernacular it is done as a rejection, which has happened time and time again ever since cuneiform was adapted to new tongues back in the early bronze age

to ensure a single standard language for all humans to be natives of you'd require a worldwide eternal empire able to perfectly instill the same speech in billions of people, and to crack down on any variances that arise by accident or by choice
an infernal tower of babel
it's an objective that goes against the sovereignty of all peoples, against the prospects of entire scientific fields, and against the logistics that have kept the chinese using their doodles for millennia as did the egyptians even earlier across three thousand years
it cannot be described as anything but illiterately genocidal, and is neither sustainable, achievable, nor useful given the unparalleled waste of resources it'd entail

>>119125
i can agree with that (as dramatic as the message above was), using other people's slang just to indicate you're screwing around is pretty tarded, and i don't like spammed phrases either
as for interjections, i employ them mostly while chatting because there's a flow to keep up, and only sometimes with posts to convey a certain, particularly informal tone and rhythm (same as anyone else, really)

>>119169
Paraguayan Guarani is the only indigenous American language to be used as something more than an identity marker though

>>119169
The big languages survived because it is fundamentally more useful to speak a language which is spoken by more people. The entire point of language is to enable communication with others. If every person had their own language, there would be no value to language. We only have as many languages as we do because technology was not sufficient to overcome the geographical barriers. The internet can and will overcome that, accelerating the rate of language normalization as people adopt more useful tongues. The cost of transitioning official languages, both financial and political, may prevent major players from accepting this any time soon, but it is an inevitability in a world where people across the globe are connected at an individual level. The reticence of a few stubborn old men to accept the future won't make their grandchildren waste time carrying on a fight that isn't theirs when they could have access to so much more by learning English.

Linguistics isn't a real science. Real sciences have seen the value of a ligua franca for effective cross-border idea exchange from their inception. I bet you also think every country should use its own system of measurement since transitioning to metric is figurative genocide and logistically infeasible.

>>119171
1) Every person has their own language, to a degree. The way you use English differs from the way others use it. Your mind is not and cannot be a perfect machine that just replicates the numerous grammar books that have been written for the English language, and the massive volume of words.
Everybody puts their own spins to it, and youths routinely surprise their parents with new slang.
2) The internet has only seemed to accelerate the evolution of the language so far. But not everybody is riding on the edge of the wave. Many people are in different places of the internet and so they are also seeing different kinds of slang, some new, some relatively old.
3) That's not even getting into the task of having to update all literature to be up-to-date with the most modern form of English, and who would be in charge of that totally-not-censorship project.

>>119169
German is a Germanic language.

>>119170
On the contrary, they've managed to survive not because of sentimental value or calculated utility but because it continued to be used by regular people, same as English during Norman rule. In Yucatán street vendors talk to foreigners in English, other Mexicans in Spanish, and speak Yucatec amongst themselves, not because of any active effort to preseve it so but because it's what they're used to.


>>119171
>The big languages survived because it is fundamentally more useful to speak a language which is spoken by more people. The entire point of language is to enable communication with others.
Correct, see the above.
>The internet can and will overcome that, accelerating the rate of language normalization as people adopt more useful tongues.
Incorrect and pure idealism. Go ask any yuro what they'd think of erasing their mother tongue for utility's sake and see what they'll tell you. Give it a try. I can assure you that I don't know a single person who'd wish for that, including those who sprinkle barely adapted loanwords all over the place. Constant contact can lead to things like areal features where grammatical elements are shared between languages without any genetic relationship, and in extreme cases importing and learning can reach the level of English or Japanese where over half of their vocabulary isn't inherited and displaced older terms, but both retain their core structure and have not been replaced by those languages of higher prestige that were so much more important at the time. The same is true for English's role today.

>Real sciences have seen the value of a ligua franca for effective cross-border idea exchange from their inception.
Your argument is political, not scientific. Biology, astronomy, and mathematics don't care about the specific language you're using, and a lingua franca is nowhere near the scale of complete replacement. But neurology does care, and I'd like to see you tell me this isn't real science:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00288/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9374885/
So do the documents and judicial systems of all governments that exist care about consistency and prior legacy, you've handwaved away the task of translating the work of millions across the last few centuries as a small problem non-stubborn people will surpass. But no, this fantasy of yours is simply impractical and unachievable without the state enforcing it.

>I bet you also think every country should use its own system of measurement since transitioning to metric is figurative genocide and logistically infeasible.
Global standardization of measurements in science and commerce does not require wiping out all other units, as again the examples of burgerland and Japan show. The same is true for lingua francas. The case of metric's adoption is a very good one, given that it had to be proactively pursued top-down by governments since its very inception. It didn't occur naturally. And yes, wilfully destroying the traditions and art of all other cultures that exist by forcing them to entirely switch to another language is cultural genocide and a crime according to multiple international treaties, without counting the armed conflicts such a project would entail.


>>119180
>German is a Germanic language.
Exactly, it shows that a language can rise into prominence even if it's from a very different branch and tradition.

>>119252
>destroying the traditions and art of all other cultures that exist by forcing them to entirely switch to another language is cultural genocide
Damn, I can't believe we genocided the Romans when we burned everything they ever created by starting to use other languages. All that culture lost forever with no way for anyone to ever experience it again and no lingering traces to be found anywhere. A shame.

>>119260
What's the point of equating evolution to replacement?

>>119260
Typed in the Roman alphabet

>>119261
To demonstrate that they're equivalents.

>>119260
The Roman language still has living descendants, in the South and West of Europe. The French did not stop using Latin. Their Latin became French.
The great loss (in the west) related to Roman culture was the Greek language, which almost no one in west Europe spoke in 800 AD.
The renaissance was basically west-Europe stumbling over the treasure trove of books that the Byzantines had preserved.

>>119264
You failed at that demonstration.

>>119264
This is one of the stupidest things I've heard in my entire life. Canada's government sending indigenous kids to isolated schools where using their native speech was banned is in no way comparable to the gradual series of centuries-long changes that lead to Latin becoming unintelligible for Romance speakers. They are entirely different things.

>>119269
No one said that they were. You're imposing a foreign framework onto a statement to discredit it. Very disingenuous post.

But I'll address it anyway. The difference is purely in the methodology, the results are the same. Condemning one method of bringing about change does not invalidate the value of the change itself. Arbitrarily labeling one an evolution and the other a replacement is simply moral posturing.

>>119270
This post is hard to reply to because it denies several basic facts everyone takes for granted. It's like saying non-avian dinosaurs are as dead as avian dinosaurs (completely dying out vs having living descendants) combined with claiming that dying of a heart attack at 90 and dying of a gunshot wound are the same thing because both lead to death (natural vs unnatural, unintentional vs intentional), while calling it a moral judgement rather than plain description. You don't really have an argument, you're just calling it all the same because of major reductionism and a ridiculously idealistic view of the process.
>foreign framework
The standard one, yes.

>>119260
You joke but that's actually true. Latin is a dead language and Rome is a dead culture.

I think that while the internet's affect on language is certainly there, it's also overblown in circles like ours, understandably given that we are on an imageboard. Most people communicate mostly with real life people who speak their own language and dialect and even when they communicate online they are still mostly using Facebook and such to speak to people of their own language. Imageboards are a very international and English dominated space and I think we take that for granted.

>>119272
It's hard to reply to because you couldn't come up with any facts to refute it with or arguments to make in regards to the original debate so you had to resort to throwing around comparisons that add nothing in order to get the last word in since that lets you claim a victory of stubbornness. Personally, I think you could have more efficiently accomplished this with a simple "no u".

>>119275
The debate proper started with this sentence:
>Wiping out dialects and lesser languages would make the world a better, more efficient place.
Some of the answers that came up as the debate progressed are:
1) If achieved, variation would kick in once more anyways because it's inherent to language. You can't set a permanent standard for millions to follow and expect that to function, much less for billions.
2) Exposure doesn't kill languages. It creates areal features, loans, and other phenomena, but the weaker ones only stop being totally spoken if there's power behind the shift.
3) Actively achieving global language standardization would require committing several crimes against humanity and create a dystopian world in the process.
I've listed plenty of examples to support this. Where are yours? You've reached the ridiculous, untenable conclusion that replacement is somehow natural and equal to inheritance. No one else would support this. And finally, let's go back to this other quote:
>There's a reason so many languages have gone the way of the dodo.
Dodos were killed until none remained.

You could also add 4) it wouldn't be efficient at all due to the associated cost.