3 ms·

> I think "used" is fine, but it doesn't imply any gross injustice. One of the primary definitions of that word describes a scenario where one person exploits

> I think "used" is fine, but it doesn't imply any gross injustice. One of the primary definitions of that word describes a scenario where one person exploits another person for their own gain. Any time the word is used to describe the nature of one’s relationship with another person, that definition is going to come to mind. I can’t agree that there is no implication of injustice.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
That is one definition, but not the only. I think it is interesting how people chose which definition to go with. It all comes down to social expectations of if the nature of the transaction. "I used Bob the contractor to build my house" has no implication of injustice. "My ex-wife used me for money" has significant implications. Used has no negative implication if used to describe a honest and mutually beneficial transaction.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  "90+ percent of all internet arguments are over semantics." I honestly wish HN would adopt a "no semantics arguments" rule. These debates over what one person thinks a word means vs what another person thinks they mean are just uninteresting and really never lead anywhere, especially when all sides pretty much agree on the underlying issue. A couple days ago I made a comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 , where I even started off by saying "well, perhaps word X isn't exactly the right word", and still the original commenter felt compelled to reply in 6 different comments why he was so sure his definition of that word was the right one and it was important that everyone else agree with him. :shrug:
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Words and language are how humans communicate information so I think it is worthwhile to talk about. That said, I think everyone would benefit from being more Curious and less dogmatic. It is ultimately subjective. I can choose to use the word up to refer to down. It would certainly cause some confusion, but at the end of the day nobody can force me to change. The best that they can do is point out that they use a different definition and why that makes sense to them. That's all I was trying to do here, and in this other more interesting thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    I sometimes wonder if Americans are uniquely prone to focusing on words rather than the underlying concepts that the words, somewhat imperfectly, attempt to describe. Once you learn a second language, you have to confront this reality. But many Americans only ever use English, and it's maybe easier to never have to think about this then?
    - noirbot 4y ago
      But isn't this discussion literally about the idiomatic concepts involved? The whole argument of semantics is a "literally vs. figuratively" discussion. Workers were "used" in the way I use a tool to do a job, but potentially not "used" in a colloquial English way that someone tricks someone into doing something for them. If anything, this is because Americans on HN think too much about the concepts underlying words and don't just take everything literally as defined.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think you are both right to a certain extent. As the comment thread demonstrates, some people think the literal definition of used is exploitative. This begs the question of why people thank the literal definition is different. I think a reasonable hypothesis is that American English speakers communicate less with non-native speakers who have learned a textbook definition.
        noirbot 4y ago
        That makes sense - if you learn words and phrases from their common use vs. from instruction, you're more likely to know both the literal and colloquial version of the words. That said, taking everything as textbook literal isn't viable in most languages. English isn't even close to the top of the heap of languages that use idioms and contextual clues to change the meaning of words and phrases. In the context of a thread where people are likely upset about layoffs, taking the use of the word "used" to have more of a negative than neutral connotation makes sense. It's not as if we're looking at a textbook example with "Jack used their employee James" and you have to guess what definition of "used" is intended. No one is arguing that OP meant that Zoom literally picked up their employees and wielded them in combat, even though that could be a viable context-less definition for "used".

s1artibartfast 4y ago

That is one definition, but not the only. I think it is interesting how people chose which definition to go with. It all comes down to social expectations of if the nature of the transaction. "I used Bob the contractor to build my house" has no implication of injustice. "My ex-wife used me for money" has significant implications. Used has no negative implication if used to describe a honest and mutually beneficial transaction.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
"90+ percent of all internet arguments are over semantics." I honestly wish HN would adopt a "no semantics arguments" rule. These debates over what one person thinks a word means vs what another person thinks they mean are just uninteresting and really never lead anywhere, especially when all sides pretty much agree on the underlying issue. A couple days ago I made a comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34656626 , where I even started off by saying "well, perhaps word X isn't exactly the right word", and still the original commenter felt compelled to reply in 6 different comments why he was so sure his definition of that word was the right one and it was important that everyone else agree with him. :shrug:
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Words and language are how humans communicate information so I think it is worthwhile to talk about. That said, I think everyone would benefit from being more Curious and less dogmatic. It is ultimately subjective. I can choose to use the word up to refer to down. It would certainly cause some confusion, but at the end of the day nobody can force me to change. The best that they can do is point out that they use a different definition and why that makes sense to them. That's all I was trying to do here, and in this other more interesting thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34697045
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  I sometimes wonder if Americans are uniquely prone to focusing on words rather than the underlying concepts that the words, somewhat imperfectly, attempt to describe. Once you learn a second language, you have to confront this reality. But many Americans only ever use English, and it's maybe easier to never have to think about this then?
  - noirbot 4y ago
    But isn't this discussion literally about the idiomatic concepts involved? The whole argument of semantics is a "literally vs. figuratively" discussion. Workers were "used" in the way I use a tool to do a job, but potentially not "used" in a colloquial English way that someone tricks someone into doing something for them. If anything, this is because Americans on HN think too much about the concepts underlying words and don't just take everything literally as defined.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think you are both right to a certain extent. As the comment thread demonstrates, some people think the literal definition of used is exploitative. This begs the question of why people thank the literal definition is different. I think a reasonable hypothesis is that American English speakers communicate less with non-native speakers who have learned a textbook definition.
      - noirbot 4y ago
        That makes sense - if you learn words and phrases from their common use vs. from instruction, you're more likely to know both the literal and colloquial version of the words. That said, taking everything as textbook literal isn't viable in most languages. English isn't even close to the top of the heap of languages that use idioms and contextual clues to change the meaning of words and phrases. In the context of a thread where people are likely upset about layoffs, taking the use of the word "used" to have more of a negative than neutral connotation makes sense. It's not as if we're looking at a textbook example with "Jack used their employee James" and you have to guess what definition of "used" is intended. No one is arguing that OP meant that Zoom literally picked up their employees and wielded them in combat, even though that could be a viable context-less definition for "used".