3 ms·
>We need better language. No, 'we' don't need that. You want better language so that you can better advocate for your pet cause. There is a big difference betw
by obstacle1 10y ago
>We need better language.
No, 'we' don't need that. You want better language so that you can better advocate for your pet cause. There is a big difference between need and want, and also between "everyone" and "this interest group that I identify with".
- skrebbel 10y agoBy "we" he meant "this interest group that I identify with", and you know it. No need to heat up the fire under a topic that's already so prone to flamewars.
- obstacle1 10y agoHe was responding to someone who was offering a disagreeing POV, on a public web forum that anyone can read or participate in. In that context, typing "we need better language" implies identification with the whole audience, i.e. all readers. 'We' does not mean 'my group of political activists' when used in that way. Hence why the correction is important. Especially given that he was advocating for the redefinition of language in service of a political ideology. If you are going to suggest that 'we need' to clarify and standardize the words we use to refer to things, then you should probably be extremely precise with your own language, no? Otherwise you are just being a patronizing e-tyrant.
- JohnBooty 10y agoWhat a strange stance to take. "I don't agree with this concept, so I want it to have an ineffective or misleading name!" If icepick lobotomies were called "happy sunshine treatments," or if breaking into peoples' homes and killing their pets was called "saying hello to your neighbors" I'm sure we could agree that those are wildly misleading terms and that we should find more accurate ones, even if we didn't agree with those practices.