3 ms·

I like this. I first noticed this with gay marriage. Some would say "gay people should be able to do what they want and form 'civil unions' with all the tax and

I like this. I first noticed this with gay marriage. Some would say "gay people should be able to do what they want and form 'civil unions' with all the tax and contractual benefits and requirements of marriage, but they shouldn't be able to get 'married'". For these people, it was all about the definition of a word. Other people opposed gay marriage because it went against their values. No matter what you wanted to call it, they were opposed to gay people living together and sharing their lives. I chose this example because it's the first time I noticed that some disagreements are about the definition of a word, and it's an especially clear example of that. It's silly how huge disagreements about a single word can become. There are also people who disguise their value disagreement as a definition disagreement. This is a form of bad faith arguing.

BJones12 2y ago
I think your example is accurate. I think there's another example around trans-vocabulary: The analog of the 1st half is "I'm not going to stop you from cutting off your man bits, but don't expect me to call you a 'woman'. 'Trans woman' is ok because that's a new word, but 'woman' already has a meaning and don't try to change it." The analog of the 2nd half is "You shouldn't do that because you're a man and you need to act like one." Or perhaps it's an affront to nature or the divine.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Some of this may be due to a desire to transform an illicit desire for authority ("I declare that I shall not pay out a bounty") into a legitimate contest ("this bug is not a bug because I desire to clarify our communal understanding of the concept of a bug...").
- jjjkjjkl 2y ago
  Difference between the first and second there is basically the dividing line between the gender-critical feminists and the conservatives, on this topic.
DrillShopper 2y ago
> Some would say "gay people should be able to do what they want and form 'civil unions' with all the tax and contractual benefits and requirements of marriage, but they shouldn't be able to get 'married'". > Other people opposed gay marriage because it went against their values. This difference does not matter - the outcome was the same. Stop treating bigots with kid gloves.

BJones12 2y ago

I think your example is accurate. I think there's another example around trans-vocabulary: The analog of the 1st half is "I'm not going to stop you from cutting off your man bits, but don't expect me to call you a 'woman'. 'Trans woman' is ok because that's a new word, but 'woman' already has a meaning and don't try to change it." The analog of the 2nd half is "You shouldn't do that because you're a man and you need to act like one." Or perhaps it's an affront to nature or the divine.

whatshisface 2y ago
Some of this may be due to a desire to transform an illicit desire for authority ("I declare that I shall not pay out a bounty") into a legitimate contest ("this bug is not a bug because I desire to clarify our communal understanding of the concept of a bug...").
jjjkjjkl 2y ago
Difference between the first and second there is basically the dividing line between the gender-critical feminists and the conservatives, on this topic.

DrillShopper 2y ago

> Some would say "gay people should be able to do what they want and form 'civil unions' with all the tax and contractual benefits and requirements of marriage, but they shouldn't be able to get 'married'". > Other people opposed gay marriage because it went against their values. This difference does not matter - the outcome was the same. Stop treating bigots with kid gloves.