5 ms·

Not much of a surprise. We've spent the last two years redefining words, most with the tacit approval of even the majority of the crowd here, so why would it st

Not much of a surprise. We've spent the last two years redefining words, most with the tacit approval of even the majority of the crowd here, so why would it stop now?

ALittleLight 4y ago
Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Recession means two quarters of negative GDP growth while a Republican is President and basically always has. It doesn't apply here!
- DuskStar 4y ago
  Absolutely fantastic. I bet that first paragraph gets said seriously within the year.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    He didn't pull it out of nowhere. The reason it seems so spot on is because we've seen so many people on HN (and other places) say lightly paraphrased versions of that first paragraph so many times over the past several years.
- niknoble 4y ago
  The tone of the first paragraph is spot on and had me fully convinced. I wasn't even surprised when I read it. I just felt the usual low-level disappointment that I've felt whenever reading any mainstream news, art, advertising, etc over the last 2 years.
- sethjr5rtfgh 4y ago
  > Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Actually, "redefine" means to change the definition regardless of the motive.
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    For suitable definitions of define and redefine that are not redefined definitions of the original definitions as defined by definition, yes.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  I accept your redefinition for the definition of redefine, but you still haven't defined what you mean by define in the context of redefine to the extent that you redefined its definition. Is define in your redefinition redefined to mean something other than the traditional definition of define as encountered in a redefine context? Or are you defining define within the redifinition of redefine as defined outside of the definition of your redefined redefine definition?
  - coding123 4y ago
    At least one persons head exploded reading that.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  > Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Language evolves, this is true. It is a slow and uncoordinated process which usually starts in a specific geographical location after which the changed words spread. This is not what is happening here. The type of intentional and coordinated redefinitions of terms is not language evolution but language revolution - or revolutionary language, viz. Merriam Webster's recent redefinition of terms like 'female' [1], 'sexual preference' [2], 'anti-vaxxer' [3] and more. [1] 'female' now includes the term 'having a gender identity that is the opposite of male' in a bid to appease transgender activists to allow them to answer the question 'what is a woman' with 'an adult human female' [2] during the hearings for Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett she (Barrett) used the term 'sexual preference' upon which the dictionary quickly modified the definition of the word 'preference' to include a claim that 'The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to' [3] this term was amended during the COVID vaccine mandate discussion by adding the claim that anyone who opposed vaccine mandates is an anti-vaxxer
LeafItAlone 4y ago
What other words are being or have been redefined in the past two years?
- DuskStar 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ChadNauseam 4y ago
    can you elaborate on how “vaccine” has been redefined in the past few years?
    - niknoble 4y ago
      Apparently the CDC literally changed its definition. From the Miami Herald (but you can check against other sources): > Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Webster dictionary broadened its definition too. From USA Today: > Merriam-Webster revised its "vaccine" definition to replace "immunity" with "immune response."
      - epakai 4y ago
        What were non-immunizing vaccines called before? I've seen "intramuscular virus injection", but I don't think that was ever a layman's term. Have we not always had the concept of sterilising immunity, and therefore non-sterilising immunity? To me this is just nuance being exposed, and word definitions being updated to include that nuance.
        the_third_wave 4y ago
        They were called "non-immunising vaccines". viz. this article from 2001: Development of a non-immunising, paraspecific vaccine from attenuated pox viruses: a new type of vaccine https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12578306/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12578306/

Not much of a surprise. We've spent the last two years redefining words, most with the tacit approval of even the majority of the crowd here, so why would it stop now?

ALittleLight 4y ago

Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Recession means two quarters of negative GDP growth while a Republican is President and basically always has. It doesn't apply here!

DuskStar 4y ago
Absolutely fantastic. I bet that first paragraph gets said seriously within the year.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  He didn't pull it out of nowhere. The reason it seems so spot on is because we've seen so many people on HN (and other places) say lightly paraphrased versions of that first paragraph so many times over the past several years.
niknoble 4y ago
The tone of the first paragraph is spot on and had me fully convinced. I wasn't even surprised when I read it. I just felt the usual low-level disappointment that I've felt whenever reading any mainstream news, art, advertising, etc over the last 2 years.
sethjr5rtfgh 4y ago
> Actually - "redefine" means to change the definition for political or arbitrary reasons. Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Actually, "redefine" means to change the definition regardless of the motive.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  For suitable definitions of define and redefine that are not redefined definitions of the original definitions as defined by definition, yes.
tpoacher 4y ago
I accept your redefinition for the definition of redefine, but you still haven't defined what you mean by define in the context of redefine to the extent that you redefined its definition. Is define in your redefinition redefined to mean something other than the traditional definition of define as encountered in a redefine context? Or are you defining define within the redifinition of redefine as defined outside of the definition of your redefined redefine definition?
- coding123 4y ago
  At least one persons head exploded reading that.
the_third_wave 4y ago
> Language naturally evolves. All languages do and have. The fact that our language continues to evolve is unremarkable - that's not "redefining" anything. Language evolves, this is true. It is a slow and uncoordinated process which usually starts in a specific geographical location after which the changed words spread. This is not what is happening here. The type of intentional and coordinated redefinitions of terms is not language evolution but language revolution - or revolutionary language, viz. Merriam Webster's recent redefinition of terms like 'female' [1], 'sexual preference' [2], 'anti-vaxxer' [3] and more. [1] 'female' now includes the term 'having a gender identity that is the opposite of male' in a bid to appease transgender activists to allow them to answer the question 'what is a woman' with 'an adult human female' [2] during the hearings for Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett she (Barrett) used the term 'sexual preference' upon which the dictionary quickly modified the definition of the word 'preference' to include a claim that 'The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to' [3] this term was amended during the COVID vaccine mandate discussion by adding the claim that anyone who opposed vaccine mandates is an anti-vaxxer

LeafItAlone 4y ago

What other words are being or have been redefined in the past two years?

DuskStar 4y ago
[flagged]
- ChadNauseam 4y ago
  can you elaborate on how “vaccine” has been redefined in the past few years?
  - niknoble 4y ago
    Apparently the CDC literally changed its definition. From the Miami Herald (but you can check against other sources): > Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Webster dictionary broadened its definition too. From USA Today: > Merriam-Webster revised its "vaccine" definition to replace "immunity" with "immune response."
    - epakai 4y ago
      What were non-immunizing vaccines called before? I've seen "intramuscular virus injection", but I don't think that was ever a layman's term. Have we not always had the concept of sterilising immunity, and therefore non-sterilising immunity? To me this is just nuance being exposed, and word definitions being updated to include that nuance.
      - the_third_wave 4y ago
        They were called "non-immunising vaccines". viz. this article from 2001: Development of a non-immunising, paraspecific vaccine from attenuated pox viruses: a new type of vaccine https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12578306/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12578306/