I am often dismayed that language prescriptivism is a dead end effort. We could have our own Acadamie Francaise, except English has already stolen all of that vocabulary.

Most people disagree with my theories of politics because they tend to be rooted in prescriptivism and behavioural analysis (ie humans are innately predisposed to choices) and that doesn't really jive with politics being a game of skill like chess that can have any result.

A large public service announcement from the Department of Being Disappointed by People Who Should Know Better. As long as you're understood either is fine. Linguistic prescriptivism is class division and based in archaic ideas of social station.

I don't care for linguistic prescriptivism. If the average person thinks of Anglo-Catholicism when they hear of "Anglicanism," I think that has an impact on what the term "Anglicanism" (the usage of which is no older than Anglo-Catholicism anyways) means

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of descriptivism (good) against prescriptivism (ha-satan)

bu arada yanlış anlaşılmasın ama ben bu konuşmada benim ne dediğimi anladığınızı cidden pek düşünmedim zaten. arınmacılar güzel oldu bak, açın girin bi wiki sayfasına, kullanın püriten yerine ve yerleşsin mesela. bu tek bir kişinin veya grubun kontrolünde değil. :) açıp biraz prescriptivism (dilsel kuralcılık) ve descriptivism (dilsel betimleyicilik) nedir bakınırsanız, ya da dillerin nasıl değiştiği hakkında biraz fikir sahibi olursanız belki ancak o zaman aynı noktada buluşabiliriz. dil dikteyle çalışan bir şey değil. bazı terimlerin karşılığının olmaması da benim suçum değil.

why can people never talk about the football/soccer thing without resorting to prescriptivism

sorry girls apparently it is not Valid to analyze material reality through a teleological lense rather than engaging in idealist prescriptivism

You are misusing "universalizable" here. Prescriptivists do not believe that people are committing to the existence of a universal command not to do X (this would make prescriptivism and objective theory of morality). They are saying the speaker of a judgment is universally committing themselves to repeating the judgment in all circumstances similar to the current one. So, "abortion is bad" is "I say to you, do not have an abortion." The universalization element of this is my commitment to repeat this judgment in all circumstances. Universalization does not mean I think there is an abstract commandment to not commit abortion, separate from myself, that holds universally.

the appeal emotivism (and it's variant/refinement prescriptivism) is that it provides an exhaustive psychological account of what someone is trying to do when they issue moral statements. The explanatory power of emotivism doesn't work if you say "abortion is bad" means "there is a booing abortion" instead of "boo abortion." That I am booing the idea of abortion is a complete idea. Similarly, "there is a command not to have an abortion" is incomplete. Who is issuing the command? God? The world? Under real prescriptivism, "abortion is bad" is a speech-act. Under the variant of prescriptivism you're floating, "abortion is bad" is a description of a command coming from an unknown source. This is both an improbably semantics, and does not solve the problems emotivism and prescriptivism were designed to solve in the first place.

I appreciate the effort and also the argument you just made here supports a crypto-prescriptivist position, ie, normative speech is a rortian word game to be won with appeals to morality, since Commands are rhetorically stronger when they can be attributed to a common belief in a higher thing, and not our personal preferences. ie, your correct points about how the language no longer makes sense when you make prescriptivism (or emotivism) open and explicit also explains why people don't make statements that way. All of your examples carry more sociopolitical force when they're reframed as claims about morality. Which is, of course, why people do this *at least* as often when doing dirt as when they are acting righteously. Commands (downstream of preferences and other feelings) obviously work better this way, because they permit us to dodge attribution for the imposition. Of course that doesn't imply moral realism is false (and I hold that it isn't) but it is a weak argument. I think a stronger argument would have to back away from linguistic sense --not what 'makes sense' to our verbal processing faculties (we know to be largely cope), but rather grounded in better measurements than "but then it wouldn't parse".

i’m allowed to comment against semiotic prescriptivism without being deeply invested in the semiotics actually

i hate this made up nerd/geek distinction. this was a difference between two synonyms which was never actually reflected in real use until one asshole decided there ought to be a difference. prescriptivism is what ppl who dont gaf about linguistics think of linguistics as :(

And the UN USES THEM (gender and sex) interchangeably!! So their output (actual evidence) overrules their prescriptivism! unodc.org/documents/data-and…

Descriptivism for language, prescriptivism for dialects.

So the phone you are using has none of that I suppose. Taxes should be used to sustain the essential roles of government, not as a punitive means of moral prescriptivism.

"third worlders" man, this race prescriptivism nonsense is low IQ as fuck

I actually think it's far more harmful to bring back prescriptivism into queer spaces, considering we've spent more than 100 years fighting against that. Queer liberation is better for us as a whole than being exclusionary.

Tuzak soru. Cümle zaten yüzde yüz kurallıymış. 14Brass prescriptivism ajanlarını bulup imha edecekmiş.

Fr what happened?? How are they falling for it? When I was a teen forefront queer thought was queer liberation, now we're back to separatism, prescriptivism? It's the COVID gap isn't it?