3 ms·

Getting mad at etymology is a sisyphean torture. You will always lose at this game. It's the nature of language. I'm mad at "literally," because it evolved out

• luckylion 6y ago
  > Getting mad at etymology is a sisyphean torture. You will always lose at this game. It's the nature of language. There seems to be a lot of intentional evolution of meaning, and I believe the criticism of the article is based upon feeling that this is such a case. Using a word with a certain meaning in a different context uses the word's power without having the same meaning. The usefulness of the word as a rhetoric tool is the delta between the impact ("original sustainable") and the thing referenced ("modern sustainable"). It's why Peta calls dairy industry cow rape and speaks of Pig concentration camps: evoking emotions to further their agenda.
  • netcan 6y ago
    I would say this happens every time someone chooses one word over another in a sentence. Language is intentional and rhetorical by nature. "Cow rape" is a good way down the spectral extremity, but choice of words is always like this. Choice of words is what evolves the meaning of words. Metaphors become cliches, become idioms, etc. That's how we get homonyms, multiple meanings, archaics...and etymology generally. Evolution is neither deterministic nor random. It's also true of how we interpret words. The term sustainability's most common modern usage means "ecologically harmful." The narrow sense of the term, "will conclude at some point," was never commonly used. Objecting to the modern usage is intentional and rhetorical also. It signifies objection to the moralizing about the environment. It's a shiboleth, at least for now. On this thread, the semantic objection earned top comment. An objection that doesn't address anything related to the article, but an objection nonetheless. That's a rhetorical win. An ad hominem is cheap, but this is inexpensive. Sweet spot. That's kind of what "rhetorical skill" is. Chris Hitchens was one of the greats, IMO. Backed against the wall, he would hit back with inexpensive rhetoric. Inexpensive is ok, just not cheap. People can smell cheap.
    • luckylion 6y ago
      There's a difference between a natural evolution of meaning and an artificial one. A similar thing (though in reverse) happened with "retarded" & similar words that started as neutral descriptions, had connotations added to them by the general population and then got intentionally pushed out by (I believe well-meaning but ultimately misguided) decision makers. They bring on the next word, the cycle repeats. I do believe that it's important to point it out when you see it, because it's actively harmful to communication. Not only does it get harder to communicate (as words now become variables that can carry whatever meaning you currently want them to carry), it also destroys the trust between people, much like lying. The individual lie may not be a huge deal, but a society that loses any and all trust in each other does not have a bright future. "Okay, yes, it's wrong, but let's not talk about that, let's focus on the topic now that we're here" isn't the right approach either, imho. I prefer the idea of "fruit of the poisonous tree" in that regard: if you start with a lie, you can't expect everyone to forgive and forget because you've now decided that it's not important and want them to focus on what you want to achieve. Agreeing to that is normalizing deviance.
      • netcan 6y ago
        I think I disagree at the fundamental level. There is no dividing line between artificial and natural. Artificial means made by people. Language is always made by people. Language evolves naturally. It's very hard to control and thus not under control of decision makers. As you said, some people try to introduce terms such as "cow rape." It doesn't work easily though. The term feels unnatural. Language is also natural to us. We're wired for dealing with its complex ambiguities. That's why we have no problem using the word "natural" to communicate things that have a very abstract relationship to the core meaning of the word. Natural beauty. Good natured. It comes naturally to me. This is how language works. The evolution of language also reflect values. The term cow rape is more likely to off in vegan subcultures. It is also, obviously, used intentionally in rhetoric. The term "sustainability" was spread, intentionally and unintentionally by those in green circles. The key point about the word "sustainability" though, is that it does mean "environmentally friendly." This is not a lie. This is the literal (meant literally) definition. If you read about sustainability in the newspaper, or it is discussed by legislators... they are talking about the modern definition. That means it is the literal definition. In terms of dishonest rhetoric, lies... Insisting that "sustainability means continuation without disruption" is a lie. It's a lie in the sense that it is untrue. This isn't what the word means in most cases, including this one. It is also a lie in a more abstract and important sense. The purpose of the argument is not to argue about words, but to take a conversation into the weeds. Insisting on the archaic usage also almost always reflects values, intentionally or otherwise. Cow rape is marginal enough (at least currently) to trigger a neutral observer. To be triggered by the term sustainable, you usually need to really disagree with the implication. In this case, that we should protect oceanic ecosystem protections from commercial fishing more. I also think these things are important to point out when seen. Taking a semantic left turn to avoid substance is, to paraphrase one famous campaigner, the "flood with shit" approach. It's effective, insidious and Orwellian. It worked a charm here.