11 ms·

Language has to be precise for any nuanced conversation to be effective, otherwise it risks becoming rushed, oversimplistic and divisive. --- Abolish = to end a

Language has to be precise for any nuanced conversation to be effective, otherwise it risks becoming rushed, oversimplistic and divisive. --- Abolish = to end an activity or custom officially https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/abolish?q=Abolish https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/abolish?... 1) "Abolish the police" = To end the police officially --- Defund = to stop providing the money to pay for something https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/defund?q=Defund https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/defund?q... 2) "Defund the police" = To stop providing the money for police --- Reform = to make an improvement, especially by changing a person's behaviour or the structure of something. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reform?q=Reform https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reform?q... 3) "Reform the police" = To improve the police by changing its behavior/structure --- The meaning of these sentences is very clear and is not open to discussion. My opinion: 1) is simply anarchic and unrealistic in any form of civilization. 2) is similar to 1), but might suggested perhaps a privately funded police instead of publicly funded? (a whole can of worms there) 3) is the most realistic and practical option and seems to me to be what most people mean and what states are doing. It's not the most dramatic and "attractive" thing to write on a poster though... There are many more views and opinions of course, these are just my takes in 10m of writing and thinking. Regardless, attempts to make this into an oversimplified binarily sided discussion reveal, IMHO, a lack of reading and comprehension ability or an agenda that is alternative to understanding and resolving these issues as a collaborative democratic society.

godelski 6y ago
> Language has to be precise for any nuanced conversation to be effective, otherwise it risks becoming rushed, oversimplistic and divisive. --- Abolish = to end an activity or custom officially But language __ISN'T__ precise and that's why we are required to understand one another in "good faith." I've said in many comments that communication has 3 parts: what is meant, what is said, and what is heard. Dr. Suss and Lewis Carol exemplify this in their literature. Not only that, but definitions of words are constantly changing. A dictionary always lags behind the true definition. After all, any linguist will tell you that words only mean what a society agrees that they mean (note the difference between "a society" vs "the speakers of that language"). We see this quite frequently. An perfect example is "capitalism" and "socialism," if you're go to is the dictionary then you're probably extremely frustrated with how most everyone uses these terms and will notice that different groups use the same words to mean completely different things! Language really is a mess. > Regardless, attempts to make this into an oversimplified binarily sided discussion reveal, IMHO, a lack of reading and comprehension ability or an agenda that is alternative to understanding and resolving these issues as a collaborative democratic society. This, I completely agree with. But the reason this is "a lack of reading and comprehension" is because "comprehension" is the acknowledgement that language is of itself imprecise and that your job as a reader is the read what was meant, and not what was said.
- A_non_e-moose 6y ago
  > But language __ISN'T__ precise and that's why we are required to understand one another in "good faith." I've said in many comments that communication has 3 parts: what is meant, what is said, and what is heard. Dr. Suss and Lewis Carol exemplify this in their literature. Agreed, good faith is definitely required in a healthy debate, and I quite liked those comments and communication model. I'll be looking through those references in future, thanks! And yes language is a mess, however, just because language is not a perfect construct or even as good as we expected it to be, I don't think we should relativize too much and put too much of the onus of the discussion on the reader. (like I've seen in threads here, some could rationalize away some words like "Abolish ~= Reform, so I'll just join this side of the protest, I'm sure that's what they meant... despite the pitchforks and torches...") In a healthy discussion I think it is as much of the sender's (speaker, writer) job to make sure he is understood as is the receiver's (listener, reader) job to make sure he understands. Awareness of such models as the ones you referred would already be quite good for most discussions. Although I suspect on most media we end up seeing two people having concurrent ideological monologues rather than a discussion with intentful listening and non-manipulative speaking... Specifically for "Abolish VS Defund VS Reform", I think we can do better and I don't think those 3 words really differ that much between dictionary and everyday language, and if I'm wrong and they do differ, the issue still remains, do we remove the system entirely, change its resources or change its behavior. > ...any linguist will tell you that words only mean what a society agrees that they mean (note the difference between "a society" vs "the speakers of that language"). We see this quite frequently. An perfect example is "capitalism" and "socialism," if you're go to is the dictionary then you're probably extremely frustrated with how most everyone uses these terms and will notice that different groups use the same words to mean completely different things! BTW, another couple of perfect examples: "fact" and "literally"...

godelski 6y ago

> Language has to be precise for any nuanced conversation to be effective, otherwise it risks becoming rushed, oversimplistic and divisive. --- Abolish = to end an activity or custom officially But language __ISN'T__ precise and that's why we are required to understand one another in "good faith." I've said in many comments that communication has 3 parts: what is meant, what is said, and what is heard. Dr. Suss and Lewis Carol exemplify this in their literature. Not only that, but definitions of words are constantly changing. A dictionary always lags behind the true definition. After all, any linguist will tell you that words only mean what a society agrees that they mean (note the difference between "a society" vs "the speakers of that language"). We see this quite frequently. An perfect example is "capitalism" and "socialism," if you're go to is the dictionary then you're probably extremely frustrated with how most everyone uses these terms and will notice that different groups use the same words to mean completely different things! Language really is a mess. > Regardless, attempts to make this into an oversimplified binarily sided discussion reveal, IMHO, a lack of reading and comprehension ability or an agenda that is alternative to understanding and resolving these issues as a collaborative democratic society. This, I completely agree with. But the reason this is "a lack of reading and comprehension" is because "comprehension" is the acknowledgement that language is of itself imprecise and that your job as a reader is the read what was meant, and not what was said.

A_non_e-moose 6y ago
> But language __ISN'T__ precise and that's why we are required to understand one another in "good faith." I've said in many comments that communication has 3 parts: what is meant, what is said, and what is heard. Dr. Suss and Lewis Carol exemplify this in their literature. Agreed, good faith is definitely required in a healthy debate, and I quite liked those comments and communication model. I'll be looking through those references in future, thanks! And yes language is a mess, however, just because language is not a perfect construct or even as good as we expected it to be, I don't think we should relativize too much and put too much of the onus of the discussion on the reader. (like I've seen in threads here, some could rationalize away some words like "Abolish ~= Reform, so I'll just join this side of the protest, I'm sure that's what they meant... despite the pitchforks and torches...") In a healthy discussion I think it is as much of the sender's (speaker, writer) job to make sure he is understood as is the receiver's (listener, reader) job to make sure he understands. Awareness of such models as the ones you referred would already be quite good for most discussions. Although I suspect on most media we end up seeing two people having concurrent ideological monologues rather than a discussion with intentful listening and non-manipulative speaking... Specifically for "Abolish VS Defund VS Reform", I think we can do better and I don't think those 3 words really differ that much between dictionary and everyday language, and if I'm wrong and they do differ, the issue still remains, do we remove the system entirely, change its resources or change its behavior. > ...any linguist will tell you that words only mean what a society agrees that they mean (note the difference between "a society" vs "the speakers of that language"). We see this quite frequently. An perfect example is "capitalism" and "socialism," if you're go to is the dictionary then you're probably extremely frustrated with how most everyone uses these terms and will notice that different groups use the same words to mean completely different things! BTW, another couple of perfect examples: "fact" and "literally"...