> 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 i

> 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...