bearodactyli love how the counterargument to 'conflate already carries a negative connotation' was for AimIsADick, PhD, to say 'well, what if someone used it in the other sense of the word, to mix! then i would HAVE to specify' as if citing the fact that there are in fact Two Senses of a word means you have to bastardize the word with some awful prefix instead of just writing like a normal human and letting the reader decide which you mean based on a thing called Context
hello it is me, highschool philosopher mcgee, i shall resolve Every Single Possible Ambiguity in my War Against Context
i studied philosophy and am in grad school doing research in natural language processing but i hope my pedigree wont mis-disqualify me from discussion with sir AimIsADick (please do keep replying though i cant wait to make a chatbot version of u trained on your awful posts)
sorry bear, we're looking for an unnatural language processor. we'll call you if we have an opening.
flatlinejoshuawnhello everyone i will help settle this epic debatedolphin rider!!!!!
conflate is best understood in modern day use as a portmanteau of confuse & inflate (a definition or a concept). "inadvertent" mixing of concepts tends to be followed in its modern definition.
the etymology points to it as just a mix of concepts, not necessarily one that is confused: https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/language_corner_020915.php
sometimes language usage just develops ironically like that lol, usually from a need to express a complex sentiment in a way that wasn't previously prolific. sometimes it's just the works of a really popular writer that bring an ironic nuance to a previously neutral word. shakespeare did this with many words. euphemisms, as a concept, are another great example of this.
i hope that helps
sincerely
forum poster
hey flatline, hope you've been doing well :)