4 ms·

> Lessig lays out the historic case for the Framers' understanding of corruption as a systemic phenomenon, in which the structure of institutions demand that ev

> Lessig lays out the historic case for the Framers' understanding of corruption as a systemic phenomenon, in which the structure of institutions demand that even the best, most moral people sacrifice their principles to thrive (or just survive) One of the most annoying aspects of social discourse right now is that everyone is redefining words and very few people have a common meaning for important words. Lessig's definition of corruption is different than my definition and different than the legal definition. I see this happening all over the place "hate speech" is also a good example every time I have a conversation or read an article about "hate speech" the definition has changed. How are we supposed to have civil discourse when the meanings of words are constantly shifting?

Pfhreak 8y ago
The evolution of language has never not been a thing. Part of having a civil discourse is keeping up with evolving societal definitions. Maybe technology is speeding that evolution, given the rate at which we're able to converse, you could convince me it's more difficult to keep up with the evolution today than it has historically been.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  tenpoundhammer isn't talking about the normal evolution of language, but rather about people trying to change the definitions of words to make their positions seem more reasonable/acceptable. That also is not a new thing, but it's different from "the evolution of language".
kneel 8y ago
Your comment and quote are almost completely unrelated. What on earth are you getting at?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I thought it was pretty obvious. tenpoundhammer's claim is that Lessig is using a nonstandard definition of "corruption" in order to make his argument work.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
lj3 8y ago
> How are we supposed to have civil discourse when the meanings of words are constantly shifting? We aren't. To some parties, that's the whole point of doing it. I don't think that's what's happening here, though. He isn't changing the meaning of the word. He's contradicting a previous re-definition of the word by restoring the traditional meaning. from TFA: > The courts and their ideological backers -- the Chicago School economists who used shitty math to prove that greed is good and that corruption consists solely of direct quid-pro-quo bribery -- have served as enablers and even cheerleaders for this new Gilded Age, celebrating anonymous political cash contributions as a form of speech protected under the First Amendment and arguing that the Framers of the Constitution would have agreed wholeheartedly with them. > Lessig walks a fine line between academic and activist as he rebuts this argument...

Pfhreak 8y ago

The evolution of language has never not been a thing. Part of having a civil discourse is keeping up with evolving societal definitions. Maybe technology is speeding that evolution, given the rate at which we're able to converse, you could convince me it's more difficult to keep up with the evolution today than it has historically been.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
tenpoundhammer isn't talking about the normal evolution of language, but rather about people trying to change the definitions of words to make their positions seem more reasonable/acceptable. That also is not a new thing, but it's different from "the evolution of language".

kneel 8y ago

Your comment and quote are almost completely unrelated. What on earth are you getting at?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I thought it was pretty obvious. tenpoundhammer's claim is that Lessig is using a nonstandard definition of "corruption" in order to make his argument work.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

lj3 8y ago

> How are we supposed to have civil discourse when the meanings of words are constantly shifting? We aren't. To some parties, that's the whole point of doing it. I don't think that's what's happening here, though. He isn't changing the meaning of the word. He's contradicting a previous re-definition of the word by restoring the traditional meaning. from TFA: > The courts and their ideological backers -- the Chicago School economists who used shitty math to prove that greed is good and that corruption consists solely of direct quid-pro-quo bribery -- have served as enablers and even cheerleaders for this new Gilded Age, celebrating anonymous political cash contributions as a form of speech protected under the First Amendment and arguing that the Framers of the Constitution would have agreed wholeheartedly with them. > Lessig walks a fine line between academic and activist as he rebuts this argument...