• Sklrtle@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Oh my fucking god dude I’ve been trying to make one single point that doesn’t even necessarily directly dispute yours, and you’ve been the most insanely difficult person to have this conversation with.

    Humor me for one fucking moment. I’m not trying to pull some gotcha moment, I don’t even care if you agree. I’m just trying get you to understand the one single thing I’ve been trying to say this entire time.

    Drop the context around the figure of speech for just a second. Once again, I’m not trying to pull a trick or some shit here.

    If you didn’t have the context around the phrase, would you be able explain to me how sex work is “selling your body,” so to speak, where other work isn’t? I understand this isn’t an opinion you hold.

    Personally? I’d say no. I can’t think of a way that isn’t some ridiculous mental gymnastics.

    If someone truly believes sex work is amoral because you’re “selling your body” and you can illustrate the point I just said you force them into a logical corner. They can either:

    1. Choose to be ignorant and/or hypocrite, stick their head in the sand, and ignore you.

    2. Recognize that sex work is just as valid as any other work.

    Or

    1. recognize all wage labor as just as amoral

    By taking the time to deconstruct the idiom and point out how idiotic it is (excuse the pun), you can take the power out of the phrase. By doing so you’re taking a weapon out of the arsenal of people who want to use the idiom to harm people.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You insist you understand the concept of an idiom, but you have been consistently unable to apply the concept meaningfully in the current case.

      Take an example.

      Tie the knot is an idiom for entering into a marriage.

      Is it a problem that no one would never deduce the overall meaning simply from the literal semantic content?

      Do you have a need to deconstruct it?