>>686669In all of my time offline the only noteworthy form of language policing I can say I've encountered is children being chastised for swearing. Plenty of time spent agonizing over specific choices in wording and the like, but never any "please don't say 'X'…" type thing.
The reason orgs are LARP-fests isn't because of linguistic pedants. Insofar as any exist, it's likely downstream of the fact that the party form is irrelevant to present circumstances. Given the present state of working class organisation, a party can only take two forms: "serious" but likely doomed electoralism, or LARPing. Once you set aside the possibility to make immediate change and move into the world of setting out "demands" that nobody has any reason to listen to, you're already playing an elf mage. If someone succeeds in making everyone in the org refer to the colour of the sky as Green, they'll be the most effective activist in the entire org because they'll actually have changed how people act. An org that doesn't act on the world as a canvas for the obsessive to act upon. A vulnerability that an org that acts on the world doesn't have because it's preoccupied with planning and conducting actual tasks. (But this isn't unique to "language policing" - time spent arguing over language use in an org is wasted in much the same way as time wasted arguing over theory.)
If much of this sounds vague to the point of insanity it's because i'm assuming some prior familiarity with the "Deliver the Goods!" thread, the tl;dr of which for our purposes might well be "Parties LARP, Tenants Unions don't".)
>Chan terminology is inherently inclusive, both in intention and practiceI am deeply impressed by the ability to so elegantly weave the evidence that this is not the case - that it's clearly designed to exclude somebody, and that this is a good thing - into evidence that it is in-fact the case.
But the same can be done for the flip side: constraining language choices is inherently inclusive - the only people it excludes from the in-group are those you'd want to exclude anyway.
The in-group can be defined by pronouncing "shibboleth" properly, or by pronouncing it improperly. Both have the exact same form: they draw a line, they put some people on one side of it and some people on the other side of it. My side, your side. The outgroup, the ingroup.
(And indeed, in an org arguing over theory, over language, over any petty little thing, you often find that it's really a personal dispute hiding behind words. The party splits because it contains an ingroup and an outgroup, rather than the party being the ingroup and the rest of the world being the outgroup…)
>Chans? Much of their point is enabling communication that's free from reputational constraintsthey fail very badly at this, but in a way that isn't immediately obvious. you can't get rid of the basic human desire, the basic monkey desire, probably even the basic dog desire to know who's in the ingroup and who's in the outgroup. there's always going to be a reddit spacing newfag. past posts may not follow you like future posts as they would under a username, people may not know your face, but they'll still find a way to draw lines and they'll often still put two and two together to identify recurring obsessives.
(and, although reputation doesn't apply so strongly, people often act as though it does - still have to get the last word, still have to get the (you)s, still have to show i'm not mad… even if the nature of the medium itself lets people play with these tendencies.)
>I mean, I look at the site's credits and notice it's running on a software called "vichan" and "lainchan". Arguing it's "not a chan" would probably require some cultural tribalism bullshitting about uniqueness of the userbase, because functionally, it self-evidently is one.my position: the name of the software is not particularly relevant and there's value in a distinction between imageboards (a style of website) and *chans (denoting a specific cultural and userbase crossover). now, you can argue back and forth about the terminology used, but that's the best way to do it in two words rather than going "futaba style imageboards with 4chan-derived culture" and "futaba style imageboards with culture independent of 4chan" or some other monstrosity.
and for the site to be culturally independent enough for that distinction to matter the userbase doesn't have to be unique, provided it code switches or otherwise acts differently the thing being measured there - culture - changes. even if you want to say "well, /leftypol/ isn't that different" it certainly applies to
other imageboards.