4 ms·

No. That is not how language works. "Money laundering" does not mean putting paper bills into a washing machine. "Private equity" firms are a specific business

by _1tem 2y ago

No. That is not how language works. "Money laundering" does not mean putting paper bills into a washing machine. "Private equity" firms are a specific business structure besides the literal meaning.

gruez 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity "Private equity (PE) is stock in a private company that does not offer stock to the general public. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering "Money laundering is the process of illegally concealing the origin of money obtained from illicit activities such as [...]" Seems like I'm using the terms properly, and you're trying to inject extra connotations. What you're doing with '"Private equity" firms are a specific business structure besides the literal meaning' is basically the same as loudly proclaiming "all cyclists are assholes" and then walking it back with 'No. That is not how language works. "cyclists" does not mean people riding bikes. When I use "cyclists" I don't actually mean all cyclists, only the bad ones.'
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  Everyone at the table understood what was meant by "private equity", the term has entered common parlance. Pulling out the dictionary just makes the "whoosh" sound even louder.
  - gruez 2y ago
    So you'd be fine with statements like "cyclists are assholes", or maybe even "undocumented migrants are assholes"? After all, in both cases you could argue that you're not meant to take those groups literally, only the bad elements within those groups. This is even a pretty common refrain by some. ie. "oh I don't hate all migrants, just the ones that's causing trouble". Where do you draw the line between "it's fine to seemingly bash an entire group of people because everyone knows you're not literally bashing the entire group" and "false rhetoric"?

by _1tem 2y ago

No. That is not how language works. "Money laundering" does not mean putting paper bills into a washing machine. "Private equity" firms are a specific business structure besides the literal meaning.

gruez 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_equity "Private equity (PE) is stock in a private company that does not offer stock to the general public. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering "Money laundering is the process of illegally concealing the origin of money obtained from illicit activities such as [...]" Seems like I'm using the terms properly, and you're trying to inject extra connotations. What you're doing with '"Private equity" firms are a specific business structure besides the literal meaning' is basically the same as loudly proclaiming "all cyclists are assholes" and then walking it back with 'No. That is not how language works. "cyclists" does not mean people riding bikes. When I use "cyclists" I don't actually mean all cyclists, only the bad ones.'

Workaccount2 2y ago
Everyone at the table understood what was meant by "private equity", the term has entered common parlance. Pulling out the dictionary just makes the "whoosh" sound even louder.
- gruez 2y ago
  So you'd be fine with statements like "cyclists are assholes", or maybe even "undocumented migrants are assholes"? After all, in both cases you could argue that you're not meant to take those groups literally, only the bad elements within those groups. This is even a pretty common refrain by some. ie. "oh I don't hate all migrants, just the ones that's causing trouble". Where do you draw the line between "it's fine to seemingly bash an entire group of people because everyone knows you're not literally bashing the entire group" and "false rhetoric"?