5 ms·

Curious: why not take the words at face value rather than redefining them in a way that annoys you?

by gms 7y ago

tomlockwood 7y ago
Isn't it possible that by posing a question that supposes the post you're questioning redefines something, you've created a case of the negative type of redefinition you're implying is happening?
- randallsquared 7y ago
  In case you didn't read the top comment, the redefining was in the text and quite literal, not something that had to be supposed or inferred: > You can just map “impressive” to “rich” and “accidental moderate” to “uninterested in increased taxation or regulation in their own life despite their otherwise disparate political views” and the whole thing comes into focus pretty clearly.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    If there's no difference between interpreting or critically analysing what someone says, and redefinition, I can see where you're coming from.
    - randallsquared 7y ago
      I do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition. I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity to decide what opinions it's possible for him to have, in the commenter's view, and then covering the message of the essay (whatever you think of it) with one of the commenter's pg-possible opinions. Personally, I'd prefer that commenters of this view argue against the essay directly, since I think there are a lot of things to say in that regard.
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        If you believe reading meaning into a text is redefinition - saying a text is trying to redefine things when the text doesn't use that precise word, is also redefinition.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. You don't "read meaning into" anything as a part of a honest analysis.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        > "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        > The definition of "impressive" does not change, Ok so for redefinition to happen, a definition needs to change. > it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. > > Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination. I'm confused now because you seem to be saying I think the author didn't use the correct word - but I never said that in my text, so you haven't taken my text at face value.

Curious: why not take the words at face value rather than redefining them in a way that annoys you?

by gms 7y ago

Curious: why not take the words at face value rather than redefining them in a way that annoys you?

Isn't it possible that by posing a question that supposes the post you're questioning redefines something, you've created a case of the negative type of redefinition you're implying is happening?

randallsquared 7y ago
In case you didn't read the top comment, the redefining was in the text and quite literal, not something that had to be supposed or inferred: > You can just map “impressive” to “rich” and “accidental moderate” to “uninterested in increased taxation or regulation in their own life despite their otherwise disparate political views” and the whole thing comes into focus pretty clearly.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  If there's no difference between interpreting or critically analysing what someone says, and redefinition, I can see where you're coming from.
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    I do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition. I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity to decide what opinions it's possible for him to have, in the commenter's view, and then covering the message of the essay (whatever you think of it) with one of the commenter's pg-possible opinions. Personally, I'd prefer that commenters of this view argue against the essay directly, since I think there are a lot of things to say in that regard.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      If you believe reading meaning into a text is redefinition - saying a text is trying to redefine things when the text doesn't use that precise word, is also redefinition.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. You don't "read meaning into" anything as a part of a honest analysis.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        > "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        > The definition of "impressive" does not change, Ok so for redefinition to happen, a definition needs to change. > it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. > > Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination. I'm confused now because you seem to be saying I think the author didn't use the correct word - but I never said that in my text, so you haven't taken my text at face value.