4 ms·

Then what’s the new definition? Anyone with right wing opinions I don’t like? And I can redefine communist as anyone with left wing opinions that I dislike? Do

Then what’s the new definition? Anyone with right wing opinions I don’t like? And I can redefine communist as anyone with left wing opinions that I dislike? Do you see why this is a dangerous path to go down?

Bakary 6y ago
New words appear constantly or old words are re-appropriated to fill the semantic necessities as they appear Seeing it as a dangerous path implies some voluntarily action and that is not exactly the mechanism at hand.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I think it’s a dangerous path because it leads to dehumanizing the other. As I said, the exact same thing happens when people on the right call anyone left wing a communist. Exactly same phenomenon, just as dangerous.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    What I'm saying is that it's going to happen regardless of the consequences, because of how languages evolve. Coming from a culture that likes to regulate language, I find that any effort in that vein tends to fail pretty spectacularly. At best, you can mandate spelling reforms. If dehumanization occurs, and people then counter that phenomenon, new words and new meanings will appear naturally just like they always have. Old words will stop being employed. There will still be confusion for a while but it's never really a significant problem. Semantic differences are a symptom of fundamental disagreements rather than a cause. Look at the word "alt-right" for instance: it filled a need, appeared quickly, was initially criticized as a euphemism but rapidly took on more specific and non-euphemistic meaning. For the younger generations, calling anyone left-wing a communist in the way you describe is already hilariously passé and associated with boomers.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      People can choose what words they decide to use. They simply have to be educated enough to know the difference and concerned enough to care.
      - Bakary 6y ago
        But that's the point. They don't have to do anything. They will use words in certain ways, and the meaning will change. And if enough people support that meaning, they will be eventually be correct. Consider how the meaning of epicurean has evolved due to Christian influence over time. Now matter how much education people get on the topic of the original philosophy, it will not be sufficient to erase the alternative meaning of the word.
    - fenderbluesjr 6y ago
      Well, people like to throw around the term Nazi much in the way. I think in general society does a pretty good job of containing the spread of that word so that _for the most part_, when somebody says Nazi, you can assume they are referring to a party that existed in Germany ~1935, or something very close (self-declared decsendents of Nazis etc) .. Further, I think you will often be checked if you try and mislabel something as Nazi, and rightly so.. It's certainly not the same as with Fascism and I would probably agree with the OP in this thread that the main is reason is that while people have seen plenty of movies about Hitler et al, the same can't be said for Mussolini. The Italian origins of the word seemed to have been lost largely due to historical ignorance..
      - Bakary 6y ago
        Essentially, you have the answer already. Since actual Nazis are still very much a highly relevant cultural reference, there is not yet enough inertia for Nazi to become a generic term. Conversely, since few care about Italian fascism, the need is not felt. The difference here is that this is not something that an intervention can fix, unless it could somehow compete with decades of cultural interactions and signifiers from billions of people. It's not a case of containing anything: that's essentially an anthropomorphization similar to seeing evolution as having intent. That is why the idea of wanting to educate people in the hopes of enforcing "correct" wording is fundamentally flawed because it has almost nothing to do with how words actually change or stay the same.

Bakary 6y ago

New words appear constantly or old words are re-appropriated to fill the semantic necessities as they appear Seeing it as a dangerous path implies some voluntarily action and that is not exactly the mechanism at hand.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I think it’s a dangerous path because it leads to dehumanizing the other. As I said, the exact same thing happens when people on the right call anyone left wing a communist. Exactly same phenomenon, just as dangerous.
- Bakary 6y ago
  What I'm saying is that it's going to happen regardless of the consequences, because of how languages evolve. Coming from a culture that likes to regulate language, I find that any effort in that vein tends to fail pretty spectacularly. At best, you can mandate spelling reforms. If dehumanization occurs, and people then counter that phenomenon, new words and new meanings will appear naturally just like they always have. Old words will stop being employed. There will still be confusion for a while but it's never really a significant problem. Semantic differences are a symptom of fundamental disagreements rather than a cause. Look at the word "alt-right" for instance: it filled a need, appeared quickly, was initially criticized as a euphemism but rapidly took on more specific and non-euphemistic meaning. For the younger generations, calling anyone left-wing a communist in the way you describe is already hilariously passé and associated with boomers.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    People can choose what words they decide to use. They simply have to be educated enough to know the difference and concerned enough to care.
    - Bakary 6y ago
      But that's the point. They don't have to do anything. They will use words in certain ways, and the meaning will change. And if enough people support that meaning, they will be eventually be correct. Consider how the meaning of epicurean has evolved due to Christian influence over time. Now matter how much education people get on the topic of the original philosophy, it will not be sufficient to erase the alternative meaning of the word.
  - fenderbluesjr 6y ago
    Well, people like to throw around the term Nazi much in the way. I think in general society does a pretty good job of containing the spread of that word so that _for the most part_, when somebody says Nazi, you can assume they are referring to a party that existed in Germany ~1935, or something very close (self-declared decsendents of Nazis etc) .. Further, I think you will often be checked if you try and mislabel something as Nazi, and rightly so.. It's certainly not the same as with Fascism and I would probably agree with the OP in this thread that the main is reason is that while people have seen plenty of movies about Hitler et al, the same can't be said for Mussolini. The Italian origins of the word seemed to have been lost largely due to historical ignorance..
    - Bakary 6y ago
      Essentially, you have the answer already. Since actual Nazis are still very much a highly relevant cultural reference, there is not yet enough inertia for Nazi to become a generic term. Conversely, since few care about Italian fascism, the need is not felt. The difference here is that this is not something that an intervention can fix, unless it could somehow compete with decades of cultural interactions and signifiers from billions of people. It's not a case of containing anything: that's essentially an anthropomorphization similar to seeing evolution as having intent. That is why the idea of wanting to educate people in the hopes of enforcing "correct" wording is fundamentally flawed because it has almost nothing to do with how words actually change or stay the same.