Alleged Mormon rudeness about homosexuality

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you use asterisks?

To differentiate between actual quotes and scare quotes in Internet-land. For the record, it's not something I made up; it's rather common.

Edited July 15, 2017 by ttribe

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

To differentiate between actual quotes and scare quotes in Internet-land. For the record, it's not something I made up; it's rather common.

So are the asterisks actual quotes or scare quotes?

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

So are the asterisks actual quotes or scare quotes?

Asterisks are actual quotes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Edited July 15, 2017 by ttribe

[deli_llama]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Asterisks are actual quotes.

Using asterisks has been around for a while now, but they aren't used to indicate quotes, they have been used to express *emphasis*, typically when bold or italics aren't available as typesets like in a text message, or online discussion that doesn't allow for type styles. It seems to me that it picked up steam after the Markdown coding convention/language was introduced.  

 

 

Edited July 15, 2017 by deli_llama

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Are you actually trying to understand something here, or just being a jerk, again?

Well that takes care of the overly sensitive part and makes that clear but I still don't know why you use asterisks.

Edit: But since others are answering who are not as sensitive, there is no need for you to reply.

Edited July 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So are the asterisks actual quotes or scare quotes?

Well the question for me is how one tells the "difference".  To me it is simple political correctness run amok.

 

Quote

 

CriticismEdit

Some experts encourage writers to avoid using scare quotes because they can distance the writer and confuse the reader.^[19]

Editor Greil Marcus, in a talk given at Case Western Reserve University, described scare quotes as "the enemy", adding that they "kill narrative, they kill story-telling ... They are a writer’s assault on his or her own words."^[20] Scare quotes have been described as ubiquitous, and the use of them as expressing distrust in truth, reality, facts, reason and objectivity.^[10] Political commentator Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic that "The scare quote is the perfect device for making an insinuation without proving it, or even necessarily making clear what you're insinuating."^[21]

Author Paul Warmington argues that placing the word race, but not any other social construct, in scare quotes has the effect of trivializing the issues of race.^[22]

The philosopher David Stove has examined the use of scare quotes in recent hilosophy as being able to neutralize or suspend words that suggest cognitive achievement, such as knowledge or discovery.^[23]

 

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes}

^{So in the OP I guess most of it should be in scare quotes}

^{But then is it "Alleged Mormons" we are distinguishing from "real Mormons" or is it the alleged "rudeness" we are distinguishing from real rudeness?}   

^{And then how does one distinguish asterisks used for emphasis from "real quotes" and was that last use of quotes "scare quotes" or "regular quotes"?}

^{More logical mush in action.}

^{And why is the font size thingy not "working"?}

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well that takes care of the overly sensitive part and makes that clear but I still don't know why you use asterisks.

Edit: But since others are answering who are not as sensitive, there is no need for you to reply.

So, being a jerk again. Got it.

[mfbukowski]

Just now, ttribe said:

So, being a jerk again. Got it.

Dang.  Clearly that ought to have been *jerk* so that I did not find it scary.

But in that context if you said "jerk" it could have meant you were calling me a "so-called" jerk- oops I meant a *so -called jerk* which would have actually meant that there was doubt that I was a jerk.

Highly complex logic at work here.

And Anscombe started this?  Hard to imagine.  If anyone got language she did.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Dang.  Clearly that ought to have been *jerk* so that I did not find it scary.

But in that context if you said "jerk" it could have meant you were calling me a "so-called" jerk- oops I meant a *so -called jerk* which would have actually meant that there was doubt that I was a jerk.

Highly complex logic at work here.

And Anscombe started this?  Hard to imagine.  If anyone got language she did.

AHA!  I knew Anscombe would never have stood for such nonsense- and guess what- scare quotes have now been pronounced "passe"- another "achievement" of the Trump "administration". 

Welcome to a new era of communication, the era of postmodernism AND post scare quotes! 

http://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/article_popover.aspx?guid=2e79a31b-2af4-4c7a-a87f-604c3d346981

So my status as a "cool dude" is hereby restored to the place it belongs.

Soon we will abolish all letters and punctuation and simply communicate in emojis!  Oh and how do you spell that?

Edited July 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[carbon dioxide]

20 hours ago, USU78 said:

Reynolds had the first amendment, too

Yes and the Supreme Court was wrong.  I bet if the court today was to take up the issue, it would be different.  I also think that when that occurred, it would have been harder for LDS or others to resist.  Today there are a lot more guns and people distrust the government a lot more. Plus I think people might tend to get more angry if they are forced to something that they would view as sinful rather than just being prevented to do some sort of practice.  Restricting a Muslim or a Jew for example that they can't wear certain religious attire in certain places is probably not going to anger and offend them as nearly as much as forcing them to accept Jesus as their savior.

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Soon we will abolish all letters and punctuation and simply communicate in emojis!  Oh and how do you spell that?

Is this the new new-speak?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the new new-speak?

 

[Damien the Leper]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And it is ok for ttribe to use asterisks while quotes are scary- used for the same purpose?

Just trying to figure out millenials I guess.

I'm not a millennial. ttribe used the asterisks to emphasize the word marriage. They don't appear to be used for a back handed motive.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I'm not a millennial. ttribe used the asterisks to emphasize the word marriage. They don't appear to be used for a back handed motive.

Better to use italics or boldface or even underscore for emphasis. Asterisks look like footnotes. 

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I'm not a millennial. ttribe used the asterisks to emphasize the word marriage. They don't appear to be used for a back handed motive.

Oh I wasn't commenting on his use of the asterisks, it was more on what the idea of "scare quotes" was all about.   This has nothing to do with gay marriage actually

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Double plus good, brother!

Or, should I say, 

[Damien the Leper]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh I wasn't commenting on his use of the asterisks, it was more on what the idea of "scare quotes" was all about.   This has nothing to do with gay marriage actually

Then why bring up the asterisks at all?

[Damien the Leper]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never understood why quote marks scare you

They are used to denote a word as you have used asterisks above.   Why exactly are quotes scarier than asterisks?

Did you have huge quote marks hiding under your bed when you were a kid?

 

No problem so long as quotation marks don't mean "not real". Let's be completely fair.

[Damien the Leper]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Better to use italics or boldface or even underscore for emphasis. Asterisks look like footnotes. 

One asterisk, maybe. I choose not to make something out of nothing. Then again, as I work on a master's thesis this must mean something different to you. I'll consult my advisor and see what he thinks.

[Damien the Leper]

11 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

No problem so long as quotation marks don't mean "not real". Let's be completely fair.

Just to be clear, usage of quotes in such a manner shows how degenerate a person is and consequently shows the person to be a troglodyte.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

One asterisk, maybe. I choose not to make something out of nothing. Then again, as I work on a master's thesis this must mean something different to you. I'll consult my advisor and see what he thinks.

I'm not so doctrinaire on this as I am on the use of quotation marks. They should be used for one reason and one reason only: to indicate that someone or something is being quoted directly.

They are not to be used to indicate emphasis. Doing so makes one's writing look amateurish.

That's covered in this blog post, which also explains the use of scare quotes and other matters pertaining to quotation marks.

Incidentally, I'm not opposed to the occasional use of scare quotes. I think it has a legitimate purpose. As the author in this link explains:

Quote

Quotation marks can also highlight that a word is being used somehow peculiarly – a writer may wish to indicate irony, inaccuracy, or scepticism, for example; used this way, they’re called scare quotes. In the line: At the party I met a teacher, a journalist, and an ‘artist’, the scare quotes around artist act as a distancing device, probably signalling doubt about the person’s credentials as an artist.

So when I use scare quotes in the phrase gay "marriage," I am signaling my disapproval of the ideology-driven redefinition of marriage. Thus, it is for me a "distancing device," to use the above author's phrase.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not so doctrinaire on this as I am on the use of quotation marks. They should be used for one reason and one reason only: to indicate that someone or something is being quoted directly.

They are not to be used to indicate emphasis. Doing so makes one's writing look amateurish.

That's covered in this blog post, which also explains the use of scare quotes and other matters pertaining to quotation marks.

Incidentally, I'm not opposed to the occasional use of scare quotes. I think it has a legitimate purpose. As the author in this link explains:

So when I use scare quotes in the phrase gay "marriage," I am signaling my disapproval of the ideology-driven redefinition of marriage. Thus, it is for me a "distancing device," to use the above author's phrase.

This ^

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

And now you're insulting our intelligence. No offense though, right?

As you wish. It's your choice. In both cases.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thus, it is for me a "distancing device," to use the above author's phrase.

Which only becomes a problem for those who fear the subversion inherent in the distance.

[Glenn101]

What happened to the thread named "Alleged Mormon rudeness about homosexuality"? When I clicked on the last page of the thread I found myself in an alien thread concerning punctuation. Someone must have started a new thread and it got mixed up by mistake.