Max King of the Wild said:
Stop this nonsense. A shill has a very precises meaning, and taking single definitions out of context to try to obfuscate the meaning is fruitless, so is engaging in this dilution of the definition. There are two essential properties of a shill:
1. They endorse or promote a product, concept, idea, person or whatever
2. They try to lend credibility to their pitch by pretending to be unaffiliated or connected to what they are promoting.
Obviously, point 2 here is where things fall apart. Reggie is a well known employee of Nintendo, it is virtually impossible for him to act as a shill in any videogame related capacity.
The technique to water down the definition of the word and then applying it to something might look convincing if you take it at face value, but if you examine the King of the Wild's position of this, shill is a word that no longer has a meaning. To make the argument valid point 2 above has to be completely removed from the definition of the word which renders it useless. Under that definition anyone who ever recommends a place to eat to their friend is a shill, anyone who creates a commercial for a product is a shill, anyone who supports a political idea is a shill, I could go on..
|
Let consult a dictionary on your second condition.... Nope not there. Point one however... Yup that's explicitly stated there... Hmm curious
|
Max King of the Wild said:
By the way, here's Oxfords definition
A person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.
Should we bring up Reggie's statements comparing Nintendo, Ms and Sony systems acting impartial? I assume we can agree he has an interest in the system.
Like it or not Reggie = shill
----
You already provided the definition yourself. Or were you just lying? Anyway, feel free to go the rest of your life pretending that anyone who speaks favorably about anything is a shill. You've already provided several definitions yourself that clearly imply that you are using the word wrong. But, you are either incapable of admitting being wrong, or don't have the faculties to understand these definitions so you keep clinging on to an incorrect position.
I have some experience with the internet and intractibility, so while I could probably easily provide 20 different and independent sources for the correct understanding of what a shill is, I know you will come back with the same retort you've already tried once before in this thread:
lol, source, x, y, z vs Mariam Webster [sic]. Then revert back to your misunderstanding of the definition.
It's a fruitless endevour on my part, so I won't chase deeper down this rabbithole. So, feel free to come back with whatever that helps you perseve face, but I suggest that at one point today you do a mental experiment: Without having to acknowledge it here infront of your peers, assume in your private mind that you could have been using the word incorrectly. With that asumption in mind, go forth on the internet and use it's vast resources trying to find information that supports the idea that a shill is someone who tries to hide their affilication with what they are promoting.
If you are capable of doing that exersize I guarantee that you will come away with a different opinion on wheter Reggie is a shill or not. If you would rather not do this excersize, let me strongly suggest that you don't use the word 'shill' in conversation to your boss or other people you need to maintain a good relationship with.
