3 ms·

Everyone knows who you mean when you call one US party "fascists" and the other "communists", but you've lost pretty much all nuance. And all you've won is a bi

Everyone knows who you mean when you call one US party "fascists" and the other "communists", but you've lost pretty much all nuance. And all you've won is a bit of impact, for a while, because the tool will blunt with constant use. You'll have to reach for "super fascists" and "mega communists" next time and that will barely move the needle and you'll be far away from the effect you got when you tried that hack the first time.

tshaddox 5y ago
But the original commenter literally feigned confusion, as if the term might have referred to people who deny that the Earth has a climate.
- luckylion 5y ago
  No, the original commenter questions whether anyone denies that earth has a climate, which would make "Climate Denier" an accurate and useful term. Of course, it's a rhetorical question to point out that the term is just used for effect, thereby reducing the utility of language. I believe you can apply Kant's categorical imperative to language as well and you'll quickly arrive at the point that misusing language to score a point will lead to language becoming less useful and you'll do much more harm than you gain.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    This is a silly view of how language works. The point of language is to communicate ideas, which is why I asked about whether there was actually a failure to communicate ideas (there wasn’t). You might as well invoke Kant to complain about how hot dogs are not actually dogs, and they’re often sold in refrigerators so they’re not even hot!
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      Calling frozen frankfurters hotdogs doesn't deliberately or dishonestly reframe the discussion in an overly simplified, pop culture manner. Hotdogs might be an everyman's food for sporting events and children, but they don't invoke a flippant, immature dismissal. Hotdogs aren't even adversarial. In this sense the use of "climate denier" fits with the coarsening of culture theme of the film. The space for discussion is prematurely attacked by the overly simplistic frame of "climate denier". Perhaps the author isn't capable of operating in that space, therefore he requires defensive rhetoric. Maybe it isn't deliberate or conscious. Perhaps he is simply bleating the preferred partisan slogan? Nuance is deliberately or unconsciously removed in lieu of shallow arrogance. That's ironic in my reading of the article and view of the movie. There's no feigned confusion in my comment above. Perhaps you misread it.

tshaddox 5y ago

But the original commenter literally feigned confusion, as if the term might have referred to people who deny that the Earth has a climate.

luckylion 5y ago
No, the original commenter questions whether anyone denies that earth has a climate, which would make "Climate Denier" an accurate and useful term. Of course, it's a rhetorical question to point out that the term is just used for effect, thereby reducing the utility of language. I believe you can apply Kant's categorical imperative to language as well and you'll quickly arrive at the point that misusing language to score a point will lead to language becoming less useful and you'll do much more harm than you gain.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  This is a silly view of how language works. The point of language is to communicate ideas, which is why I asked about whether there was actually a failure to communicate ideas (there wasn’t). You might as well invoke Kant to complain about how hot dogs are not actually dogs, and they’re often sold in refrigerators so they’re not even hot!
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Calling frozen frankfurters hotdogs doesn't deliberately or dishonestly reframe the discussion in an overly simplified, pop culture manner. Hotdogs might be an everyman's food for sporting events and children, but they don't invoke a flippant, immature dismissal. Hotdogs aren't even adversarial. In this sense the use of "climate denier" fits with the coarsening of culture theme of the film. The space for discussion is prematurely attacked by the overly simplistic frame of "climate denier". Perhaps the author isn't capable of operating in that space, therefore he requires defensive rhetoric. Maybe it isn't deliberate or conscious. Perhaps he is simply bleating the preferred partisan slogan? Nuance is deliberately or unconsciously removed in lieu of shallow arrogance. That's ironic in my reading of the article and view of the movie. There's no feigned confusion in my comment above. Perhaps you misread it.