3 ms·

What would you like to talk about under the original definition of sustainable, then? It seems to me like we're still discussing all this stuff just fine. In

What would you like to talk about under the original definition of sustainable, then? It seems to me like we're still discussing all this stuff just fine. In fact, this whole subthread seems to be a deliberate attempt to sidetrack discussion of important ecological policy with a pointless war about linguistics. Even taking all that, I don't see how we're breaking with the spirit of the word anyway. If you have a fishery that preserves the population of one target species, but is steadily depleting that of another (the bycatch), why should we call that "sustainable", exactly?

cataphract 6y ago
> In fact, this whole subthread seems to be a deliberate attempt to sidetrack discussion of important ecological policy with a pointless war about linguistics. The fight for marriage equality was a "pointless war about linguistics" in those jurisdictions where the same-sex couples already had the same substantial rights? The choice of signs is important; in particular some carry more respectability than others. The word choice does matter if what you're doing is taking a concept that the public already supports, and tack on additional meanings to advance your agenda. If all that mattered in a discussion > Even taking all that, I don't see how we're breaking with the spirit of the word anyway. If you have a fishery that preserves the population of one target species, but is steadily depleting that of another (the bycatch) The article doesn't make that argument.
- dastbe 6y ago
  It wasn't a fight over linguistics, it was a fight for the right for same-sex couples to be able to enter into the same legal contract as any other couple. the idea that there existed a "separate but equal" set of rights under a distinct legal contract is questionable, but also not a fight over linguistics.
BurningFrog 6y ago
We're not discussing things fine if different people mean different things with the word. That is how communication dies and people misunderstand each other.
- netcan 6y ago
  Exactly the opposite. This is how human language works. Our brains are specifically designed to work out these ambiguities. That's why NLP is hard. It's what the "L" means. This is why you did not have any trouble understanding the author. Humans are also good at creative problem solving. In your case, the problem is that the article is well reasoned and hard to argue against. Semantics are always easy to argue though. So, you argue that we must use the term "sustainability" in in the way it was used back when no one used it. I wonder why this even works. The author's usage is obviously and demonstrably correct. It is a far more common usage than yours. Homonyms exist. Somehow this nonsense makes top comment on half the threads on HN, and everywhere else... derailing actual conversations about actual stuff. I reckon it's the same brain bug that makes reality TV popular. The conversation about nothing adjacent to the conversation about something.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    > In your case, the problem is that the article is well reasoned and hard to argue against. Semantics are always easy to argue though. So, you argue that we must use the term "sustainability" in in the way it was used back when no one used it. It's fascinating how you made all that up. The inner motivation of someone you've never met. The claim that I argued against the article. What I'm supposedly arguing for. None of that is in what I wrote. It all happened in your mind.

cataphract 6y ago

> In fact, this whole subthread seems to be a deliberate attempt to sidetrack discussion of important ecological policy with a pointless war about linguistics. The fight for marriage equality was a "pointless war about linguistics" in those jurisdictions where the same-sex couples already had the same substantial rights? The choice of signs is important; in particular some carry more respectability than others. The word choice does matter if what you're doing is taking a concept that the public already supports, and tack on additional meanings to advance your agenda. If all that mattered in a discussion > Even taking all that, I don't see how we're breaking with the spirit of the word anyway. If you have a fishery that preserves the population of one target species, but is steadily depleting that of another (the bycatch) The article doesn't make that argument.

dastbe 6y ago
It wasn't a fight over linguistics, it was a fight for the right for same-sex couples to be able to enter into the same legal contract as any other couple. the idea that there existed a "separate but equal" set of rights under a distinct legal contract is questionable, but also not a fight over linguistics.

BurningFrog 6y ago

We're not discussing things fine if different people mean different things with the word. That is how communication dies and people misunderstand each other.

netcan 6y ago
Exactly the opposite. This is how human language works. Our brains are specifically designed to work out these ambiguities. That's why NLP is hard. It's what the "L" means. This is why you did not have any trouble understanding the author. Humans are also good at creative problem solving. In your case, the problem is that the article is well reasoned and hard to argue against. Semantics are always easy to argue though. So, you argue that we must use the term "sustainability" in in the way it was used back when no one used it. I wonder why this even works. The author's usage is obviously and demonstrably correct. It is a far more common usage than yours. Homonyms exist. Somehow this nonsense makes top comment on half the threads on HN, and everywhere else... derailing actual conversations about actual stuff. I reckon it's the same brain bug that makes reality TV popular. The conversation about nothing adjacent to the conversation about something.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  > In your case, the problem is that the article is well reasoned and hard to argue against. Semantics are always easy to argue though. So, you argue that we must use the term "sustainability" in in the way it was used back when no one used it. It's fascinating how you made all that up. The inner motivation of someone you've never met. The claim that I argued against the article. What I'm supposedly arguing for. None of that is in what I wrote. It all happened in your mind.