Zone1 Semantics: Why it Matters

[$ecular#eckler]

Only a home schooled Cracker will argue with dictionary definitions.

I am not sure of your intentions with that reply to my argument suggesting that the dictionary definition you presented is some type of irrefutable proof. Are you trying to offend me with a racial slur mixed with a pedagogy method that I cannot remember having expressed my experience and preference about that would lead you to assume what you seem to be assuming?

What's up? Do you believe dictionary definitions are irrefutable?

I can guarantee that there are major social problems caused by the lack of reliable definitions (semantics) to some common terms used to discuss social issues. We have a good stability with the definitions of physical properties, but the definitions used to describe social activities is relatively caotic.

All are invited to discuss this matter to its resolution.

 

[White 6]

I am not sure of your intentions with that reply to my argument suggesting that the dictionary definition you presented is some type of irrefutable proof. Are you trying to offend me with a racial slur mixed with a pedagogy method that I cannot remember having expressed my experience and preference about that would lead you to assume what you seem to be assuming?

What's up? Do you believe dictionary definitions are irrefutable?

I can guarantee that there are major social problems caused by the lack of reliable definitions (semantics) to some common terms used to discuss social issues. We have a good stability with the definitions of physical properties, but the definitions used to describe social activities is relatively caotic.

All are invited to discuss this matter to its resolution.

Pretty much irrefutable, if they got to define it first. Kind of like naming rights. But, in modern times, anything can be misused. Look what happened to "conservative".

 

[Pellinore]

I run into this all the time.

The purpose of a dictionary has never been to issue commandments on how each word must be used and spelled. It has always been to show us how society is using and spelling that word. It has to be this way, because language is often changing; it is society that establishes and changes the words, not some sort of power invested in the dictionaries.

In other words, we (billions of us together) tell the dictionary what to write; the dictionary does not tell us what to say.

Most words are pretty straightforward, but dictionaries are very poorly suited for defining technical and scientific terms, and, since political science is a science, it is the wrong place to look for definitions of political terms. It should absolutely not be considered an authority in that instance.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Opinion | The Stanford Guide to Acceptable Words

Behold the school’s Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative.

www.wsj.com

Stanford Seeks the 'Elimination of Harmful Language' Like 'American,' 'Stupid,' and...'Karen'

Stanford University seeks the "Elimination of Harmful Language"—words like "American," "stupid," and even "Karen"

reason.com

 

[Leo123]

Planned Parenthood is a semantic lie.

 

[Rogue AI]

The only way a dictionary could be irrefutable would be if the definitions NEVER changed. So long as words can be changed by the whims of publishers the meanings of said words are simply transitory and of limited value.

 

[sartre play]

One thing we can say, the twisting of words to discredit there meaning, has risen to an astonishing level of stupid.