№15932790[Quote]
you're conflating sharty culture with IAS
№15932806[Quote]
>>15932770No, it really does not.
>>15932790This, so much this.
№15932812[Quote]
>>15932790Those are effectively one in the same
№15932818[Quote]
its posted on soy therefore its ias
№15932826[Quote]
>>15932812ebendoe mlp is sherdee cultcha and that couldnt be farther from ias
№15932833[Quote]
>>15932826but the difference is that giga is posted like a ias, how could you tell?
№15932841[Quote]
>>15932833does painting yourself black make you a nigger
№15932856[Quote]
>>15932841what does that have to do with anything i said?
№15932870[Quote]
>>15932856you are conflating superficial traits with the traits that define what IAS is: stubble, bald, glasses. Just like how coloring your skin brown doesnt make you a nigger, genes do
№15932891[Quote]
>>15932870I'd argue that the stubble and glasses are the real superficial traits. For all intents and purposes gigas are functionally ias.
№15932914[Quote]
>>15932906You're doing the samething I just pointed out, it's great you have your little headcanon about what IAS is or isn't, but definitionally it's around stubble, bald, glasses.
№15932927[Quote]
>>15932914That's kind of pedantic. Words and Definitions can evolve beyond their original scope as they are just means of communication. And the most relevant aspects of IAS arent the glasses but how it's used. And by that definition it covers giga and frog.
№15932953[Quote]
>>15932841no because having dark skin is not the most relevant aspect to a nigger
№15932966[Quote]
>>15932953Yup, which is what the IAS giga arguer doesn't seem to understand. Just because someone robs a store it doesn't make them a nigger, just like if you use a giga in the same manner as a soyjak, it doesnt make it IAS
№15932981[Quote]
I meant to say IAS
№15932988[Quote]
>>15932977
That's fine if you wanna argue that they fulfill a similar role, but it doesn't make them IAS since that has no bearing on the definition
№15932999[Quote]
(rewrite) I am the IAS giga guy. I'm saying that giga and other IAS are so alike that they both fit the label IAS in the relevant ways.
>>15932966 №15933045[Quote]
>>15932988Words aren't objective. They can and do change over time. That's how Latin became Mexican. I'm saying why can't giga be IAS? Why does IAS have to mean "literally the exact soyjak meme that got popular back in 2019?" If the definition that includes giga is more direct to the relevant aspects (which I'd argue it is) then why can't giga be IAS?
№15933050[Quote]
>>15933045Spics and niggers both rob a lot of stores, are spics niggers
№15933068[Quote]
>>15933050Of course not, I'd argue the most relevant aspects are different, although actually you could probably call a spic a nigger just not the other way around
№15933073[Quote]
>>15933068We're basically having two arguments here, I'm arguing that definitionally gigas and pepes dont fall under IAS, while you're arguing that the definition of IAS should fall beyond stubble, baldness, and glasses.
№15933081[Quote]
>>15933073I'm arguing that the definition has evolved beyond stubbles and glasses
№15933097[Quote]
>>>15932757 (You) (OP)
>>>15932766
>>>15932770 (You)
>>>15932781
>>>15932787 (You)
>>>15932790
>>>15932806
>>>15932812 (You)
>>>15932818 (You)
>>>15932826
>>>15932833 (You)
>>>15932841
>>>15932856 (You)
>>>15932870
>>>15932891 (You)
>>>15932894
>>>15932906 (You)
>>>15932914
>>>15932927 (You)
>>>15932936
>>>15932953 (You)
>>>15932966
>>>15932981 (You)
>>>15932988
>>>15932999 (You)
>>>15933002
>>>15933045 (You)
>>>15933050
>>>15933068 (You)
>>>15933073
>>>15933081 (You)
>because they just are, mkay?
№15933098[Quote]
>>15933081Then as it stands now you would just be wrong. IAS is just stubble, baldness, and glasses. Just like how niggers are africans. It doesn't matter how much someone imitates IAS and niggers through actions, it doesn't change the definition. You can argue that this definition should be expanded, just like how some people want nigger to reflect more of a mindset than a race
№15933115[Quote]
gigas are only funny for ogd and frogs always suck
№15933123[Quote]
>>15933098You misunderstand.
It doesn't matter if someone is imitating the definition or trying to imitate or whatever.
All that matters is how people use the word.
And a lot of people use a distinction between stuff like giga and stuff like tranime.
№15933129[Quote]
>>15933123And how people use the word is bald, stubble, and glasses. The wiki backs this up, and this argument in and of itself backs it up. I'm not saying words can't change, but until people reach a consensus with your definition you're just arguing fanfic
№15933136[Quote]
>>15933123>All that matters is how people use the word.Wrong.
All that matters is
reality.
Kill yourself if this isn't bait.
№15933147[Quote]
>>15933129I use the word to mean gigas and frogs because thats the most relevant distinction
>>15933136reality is relative
№15933153[Quote]
>>15933147And definitionally you'd be inaccurate as:
>>15933129 №15933157[Quote]
>>15933153I dont use it that way
№15933160[Quote]
>>15933157People meaning common consensus. I can use niggers to describe ants and it wont change the definition
№15933168[Quote]
>>15933160appeal to "consensus" is an appeal to authority fallacy
№15933175[Quote]
>>15933168This isn't an appeal to consensus this is just how languages work
№15933178[Quote]
>>15933168atc is literally used to justify gay race communism
№15933194[Quote]
>>15933175Yes and words are not solid venn diagrams of meaning, they are fuzzy clouds. Some aspects of conventional IAS intersects with the giga definition, some don't. You could say that black is technically (0,0,0) rgb or whatever but you would say (1,1,1) rgb is also black in normal conversation. What im trying to say is that my definition is better than yours
№15933211[Quote]
>>15933194>Some aspects of conventional IAS intersects with the giga definitionNo, they dont
>You could say that black is technically (0,0,0) rgb or whatever but you would say (1,1,1) rgb is also black in normal conversation.Yes, just like a markiplier soyjak and a soyprano could both be defined as IAS as the both fit the definition, just like 0,0,0, and 1,1,1 would both fit the idea of black.
<What im trying to say is that my definition is better than yours
№15933219[Quote]
>>15933147Reality is not relative tranny.
Kill yourself.
№15933223[Quote]
>>15933219No it technically isn't but all of our observations of it are so pretty much.
№15933228[Quote]
>>15933211>no they don'tThey objectively do
№15933231[Quote]
>>15933228>Bald, glasses, stubble>Buff manblud… im trans btw
№15933235[Quote]
>>15933231no argument award
№15933237[Quote]
you're ias
№15933243[Quote]
>>15933235>Bald, glasses, stubble>Buff manYou've yet to say how these overlap though
№15933250[Quote]
>>15933243That's not all of the aspects "IAS" encompasses. You've only looked ate two aspects and said "Look! They're so different" like a tranny who looks at aryans and niggers saying "Look! They both breathe air! They must be the same!"
№15933272[Quote]
>>15933250>That's not all of the aspects "IAS" encompassesMaybe not according to your fanfic, but I'm discussing the actual definition. I'm arguing whether or not the definition of IAS applies to gigas and pepes, while you're arguing that the definition ought to be expanded. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you no longer have to run round in circles
№15933275[Quote]
>>15933272Your entire argument is a veiled appeal to authority
№15933289[Quote]
>>15933279It is you're just doing a "this the correct definition" objectivism fallacy when it isn't that simple.
№15933297[Quote]
i have to go night night i cant argue with you dnbs any more
№15933304[Quote]
>>15933297ive been putting off studying to argue this geeeeeg or something