5 ms·

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 redefin

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.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      And interestingly, CPLX seems to be doing exactly what the article talked about. PG said something, and CPLX wouldn't listen to what it actually said, because it came from one of those rich people, and they couldn't possibly have anything honest and true to say. This is CPLX not actually considering PG's opinion for what it is, but for how it fits in CPLX's already-existing framework.
      - CPLX 7y ago
        I mean I think he’s being honest. He’s saying that he is looking at a system in which he’s literally amassed billions of dollars and doesn’t see any reason for sudden changes. He’s just not interested in exploring how those two facts interact. What I am hopefully pointing out is that he could be doing a better job of trying to understand why people who are literally living in misery and despair might be seeking more radical change. The fact that some of his decisions may have directly let to the misery of some of those people makes this conversation complicated. It’s relevant that the greatest political problem in society right now is people hoarding vast amounts of resources, and that he’s literally doing that. Of course he doesn’t have to agree that this is in fact the greatest problem today, but he could at least note that many of the people he’s supposedly analyzing do believe this. He’s almost certainly capable of having a more nuanced discussion that recognizes his own position and perspective, but is choosing not to do that. This isn’t an academic treatise it’s a personal essay about his own subjective impressions, and he’s leaving out the most important aspect of his own lived experience. You might even call that omission intentional
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > The fact that some of his decisions may have directly let to the misery of some of those people makes this conversation complicated. I'd like to see how you think that PG's decisions directly lead to the misery of those living in misery and despair. In the absence of a logical flow of cause and effect, I'm going to assume that you're blowing ideological smoke. > It’s relevant that the greatest political problem in society right now is people hoarding vast amounts of resources... I seriously question whether that's the greatest political problem in society right now.

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.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    And interestingly, CPLX seems to be doing exactly what the article talked about. PG said something, and CPLX wouldn't listen to what it actually said, because it came from one of those rich people, and they couldn't possibly have anything honest and true to say. This is CPLX not actually considering PG's opinion for what it is, but for how it fits in CPLX's already-existing framework.
    - CPLX 7y ago
      I mean I think he’s being honest. He’s saying that he is looking at a system in which he’s literally amassed billions of dollars and doesn’t see any reason for sudden changes. He’s just not interested in exploring how those two facts interact. What I am hopefully pointing out is that he could be doing a better job of trying to understand why people who are literally living in misery and despair might be seeking more radical change. The fact that some of his decisions may have directly let to the misery of some of those people makes this conversation complicated. It’s relevant that the greatest political problem in society right now is people hoarding vast amounts of resources, and that he’s literally doing that. Of course he doesn’t have to agree that this is in fact the greatest problem today, but he could at least note that many of the people he’s supposedly analyzing do believe this. He’s almost certainly capable of having a more nuanced discussion that recognizes his own position and perspective, but is choosing not to do that. This isn’t an academic treatise it’s a personal essay about his own subjective impressions, and he’s leaving out the most important aspect of his own lived experience. You might even call that omission intentional
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > The fact that some of his decisions may have directly let to the misery of some of those people makes this conversation complicated. I'd like to see how you think that PG's decisions directly lead to the misery of those living in misery and despair. In the absence of a logical flow of cause and effect, I'm going to assume that you're blowing ideological smoke. > It’s relevant that the greatest political problem in society right now is people hoarding vast amounts of resources... I seriously question whether that's the greatest political problem in society right now.