• Lvxferre
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are four things wrong with your comment, that I wish that people did not bring to Lemmy.

    1. Failure to address what people are actually saying, on a discursive level, to focus on the specific words that they’re using to convey said discourse.
    2. The false belief that words and expressions have an intrinsic, immutable, “magically coded” meaning.
    3. Usage of emoticons and emojis to “shield” the speaker, without taking into account that they do not minimise the threatening act towards the hearer’s positive face.
    4. “As a”-based argumentation, as if the truth and/or moral value of a claim “magically” changed acc. to who does the claim.

    Focusing specially on #2, as it’s more relevant here. The word “factoid” is commonly associated with at least two meanings, and the def that you’re implying (“factoid” as something similar but not identical to a fact) is only one of them. The word is also used to convey “minor fact” or “trivia”, regardless of its truth value; as attested by Cambridge, Oxford #2, Wiktionary #2, Merriam-Webster #2; and OP is clearly assigning that meaning to “factoid” in the utterance, as it would not make sense to talk about an “inaccurate factoid” otherwise**.

    *I’m referring to Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory.

    **I’m referring to Gricean logic, specially the maxim of quantity.