Truth is truth. And it seems to me that lately there has been a deliberate attempt - by people on most sides of debates - to redefine words to suit themselves, and then use them as bludgeons on people who do not share those definitions. Some words that immediately come to mind are homophobia, marriage, illegal alien, undocumented worker, racism, hate, love (this ones redefined by the right and to similar effect), sin, bigot, God, faith, atheism, belief, logic, and the list goes on. All of these words have had a clear, specific meaning for centuries. But then someone decided that they didnt like the concepts that were represented by the words, and decided to change the meaning. Now a word that used to mean fear of gay people means not absolutely accepting. Now a word that used to mean a sacred covenant between a man and woman now means two or more people who want to be called married (this is paradoxically likely a better definition for civil purposes, but its still a redefinition and co-opting of the word) . Hate used to mean something akin to an extreme antipathy, disgust, loathing, but now it means anything I dont like. Love used to mean selfless giving, now it means something said to get him/her to sleep with me. The problem with these kinds of redefinitions is that the words are actually tied to concepts, and by co- opting the word, the concepts behind the word get weakened. Theres a reason that divorce rates have been going up as the concept behind marriage has weakened, for example. Theres a reason that racism and bigotry arent seen as a severe problem anymore - and I think its partly because the once narrowly defined thing that bigotry used to mean has been expanded so much that is not only unrecognizable, its nebulous and weak. And when people debate these topics, they likely have two different meanings of the word in mind, possibly very entrenched, so while they use the same word theyre using two entirely differently concepts in their head - and they wonder why they never come to agreement. People who are branded as homophobic may very well love gay people (and may not, but they may) - but the use of that word is a thought-stopper that does not lend itself either to nuance or understanding. People who are branded as bigots may very well just think that someone is doing something that is wrong - but have no hatred, antipathy, or even dislike for the person themselves. That doesnt matter. The words get redefined, civil discourse breaks down, and youre left with people talking past each other and convinced of their own rightness and moral superiority. Even the religious debates fall into this trap. Faith has two different meanings. Atheists, anti-theists, and scientists all have their own meaning, and people of faith have theirs. It means something entirely different to each group. And you wonder why there is never any civil debates. Its a fundamental misunderstanding (or intentional redefinition) of the word, and I think in some cases deliberately so. Its far easier to dismiss people of faith when your definition of faith is far more narrower and stupid than the definition of faith that those who own the word are working under. And, to be fair, people of faith sometimes to the same to atheists. Atheists and anti-theists arent always the same, but its far easier to lump them together than not, even though anti-theists tend to be far more obnoxious. Thats helped along, though, by the anti-theists co-opting the name, so theres still a redefinition going on there. I dont let people redefine words, either in conversation with me, or otherwise. First, we will agree on the definition, or the conversation wont happen. Debates where the same word has two different meanings are doomed from the beginning. And sometimes, I suspect, deliberately so.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:06:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015