4 ms·

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 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.

luckylion 6y ago
> Artificial means made by people. Language is always made by people. Artificial in language, to me, means "made by decisions" vs "made by accident". Some things evolve because plenty of individual people see the value and use them in a new way, other things get forced into language because some people see the value of framing issues in a certain way. To me, the former is natural progression of language while the latter is artificial. Much like you can have traditions and religions be created over time in a region or population, that's quite natural. If an army comes and forces them to adopt different traditions and religions, those are artificially implanted. That Peta isn't able to push some term doesn't mean that there's no term-pushing happening or that it's not successful. Framing is a popular tactic. > The key point about the word "sustainability" though, is that it does mean "environmentally friendly." But it really doesn't. Sustainability is quite literally (!) the ability to sustain. Environmentally friendly is very vague and can mean lots of things to lots of people. Factory farming is very sustainable on its own, but it's not environmentally friendly. Sustainability is generally not used as a synonym for environmentally friendly neither, otherwise we wouldn't talk about environmentally sustainable policies, we'd just talk about sustainable policies - but that would be confusing, because there are also economically sustainability issues that have nothing to do with the environment, as are plenty of others, e.g. manually sorting each letter in a country can be done, but it can't be done sustainably. > The purpose of the argument is not to argue about words, but to take a conversation into the weeds. My reaction is the opposite. When someone claims that there's a "white genocide", I disagree and generally discount their argument because it's not strong enough to stand on it's own and therefore they mix in the word "genocide" to create an emotional impact. Pointing that out isn't about derailing the conversation, it's about keeping a minimum level of honesty in communication. Don't use words while massively changing their meaning to advance your agenda, don't do silly card tricks to win an argument by confusing the audience. It's important to insist on it, otherwise you get what Trump has demonstrated quite nicely: if language has no shared meaning any more, the person who says the most outrageous things, delivers the best zingers, talks the loudest or makes the most expressive faces wins every argument because he'll go "they murdered that guy", reap the effect of making people believe somebody was murdered, and when confronted "well, I used murdered in a modern meaning". > 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. No. To be against torture of terrorists, you don't need to be pro-terrorism, you just need to be anti-torture. That is, unless all those words have been assigned random new meanings, then it may very well be true.
- netcan 6y ago
  You are missing the point. If I say that "poisoning birds of prey on your farm is unsustainable," that is not a claim. The meaning of the term is not "cannot go on." "Can go on" is another definition of sustainable. This why dictionaries have multiple definitions, wikipedia has disambiguation pages, etc. The archaic definition is relatively rare, and easy to discern from context. Environmental sustainability has a wikipedia entry. Ability to sustain does not. Also news articles, book titles, legislative literature, academic literature. etc. I don't know what more I can say. Words mean what they mean, and that evolves over time. Insisting that the modern usage is wrong and the archaic usage is correct is basically using a "loaded" term. No one writing or speaking about sustainability in an intellectually honest way expects the narrow, archaic usage. Environmental sustainability almost always has a wider definition. If we are having a discussion about environmental sustainability and someone insists that a practice is sustainable "really" means "can go on" regardless of environmental harm.... then they are loading the term. It's an attempt to change the meaning of the term, as it is commonly used, while keeping the moral connotations. Why would anyone care about environmental sustainability in the narrow sense? Inexpensive rhetoric. Disingenuous. It's disingenuous even if it is semantically correct. In this case (and often) the argument is factually wrong. This is what makes it good red herring. It's effective at rallying even if factually incorrect.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by netcan 6y ago

luckylion 6y ago

> Artificial means made by people. Language is always made by people. Artificial in language, to me, means "made by decisions" vs "made by accident". Some things evolve because plenty of individual people see the value and use them in a new way, other things get forced into language because some people see the value of framing issues in a certain way. To me, the former is natural progression of language while the latter is artificial. Much like you can have traditions and religions be created over time in a region or population, that's quite natural. If an army comes and forces them to adopt different traditions and religions, those are artificially implanted. That Peta isn't able to push some term doesn't mean that there's no term-pushing happening or that it's not successful. Framing is a popular tactic. > The key point about the word "sustainability" though, is that it does mean "environmentally friendly." But it really doesn't. Sustainability is quite literally (!) the ability to sustain. Environmentally friendly is very vague and can mean lots of things to lots of people. Factory farming is very sustainable on its own, but it's not environmentally friendly. Sustainability is generally not used as a synonym for environmentally friendly neither, otherwise we wouldn't talk about environmentally sustainable policies, we'd just talk about sustainable policies - but that would be confusing, because there are also economically sustainability issues that have nothing to do with the environment, as are plenty of others, e.g. manually sorting each letter in a country can be done, but it can't be done sustainably. > The purpose of the argument is not to argue about words, but to take a conversation into the weeds. My reaction is the opposite. When someone claims that there's a "white genocide", I disagree and generally discount their argument because it's not strong enough to stand on it's own and therefore they mix in the word "genocide" to create an emotional impact. Pointing that out isn't about derailing the conversation, it's about keeping a minimum level of honesty in communication. Don't use words while massively changing their meaning to advance your agenda, don't do silly card tricks to win an argument by confusing the audience. It's important to insist on it, otherwise you get what Trump has demonstrated quite nicely: if language has no shared meaning any more, the person who says the most outrageous things, delivers the best zingers, talks the loudest or makes the most expressive faces wins every argument because he'll go "they murdered that guy", reap the effect of making people believe somebody was murdered, and when confronted "well, I used murdered in a modern meaning". > 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. No. To be against torture of terrorists, you don't need to be pro-terrorism, you just need to be anti-torture. That is, unless all those words have been assigned random new meanings, then it may very well be true.

netcan 6y ago
You are missing the point. If I say that "poisoning birds of prey on your farm is unsustainable," that is not a claim. The meaning of the term is not "cannot go on." "Can go on" is another definition of sustainable. This why dictionaries have multiple definitions, wikipedia has disambiguation pages, etc. The archaic definition is relatively rare, and easy to discern from context. Environmental sustainability has a wikipedia entry. Ability to sustain does not. Also news articles, book titles, legislative literature, academic literature. etc. I don't know what more I can say. Words mean what they mean, and that evolves over time. Insisting that the modern usage is wrong and the archaic usage is correct is basically using a "loaded" term. No one writing or speaking about sustainability in an intellectually honest way expects the narrow, archaic usage. Environmental sustainability almost always has a wider definition. If we are having a discussion about environmental sustainability and someone insists that a practice is sustainable "really" means "can go on" regardless of environmental harm.... then they are loading the term. It's an attempt to change the meaning of the term, as it is commonly used, while keeping the moral connotations. Why would anyone care about environmental sustainability in the narrow sense? Inexpensive rhetoric. Disingenuous. It's disingenuous even if it is semantically correct. In this case (and often) the argument is factually wrong. This is what makes it good red herring. It's effective at rallying even if factually incorrect.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]