Controversial General Political Discussion

[Peroroncino]

How about looking at the historical and political reality of movements instead of sticking to definitions ?

We need to end the "dictature" of definitions. They are limiting our thoughts and reasonning. Words have contexts, history, they change through time, they evolve, they are appropriated, desappropriated, reappropriated etc.. Definitions are limiting our understanding of concepts and words.

sounds great, end definitions, words will mean whatever one wants them to mean am i right my penis?

 

[Logiko]

sounds great, end definitions, words will mean whatever one wants them to mean am i right my penis?

I'm not saying that we should end definition. I'm saying that we should end the injonction of sticking to definition during discussions. Word matter, but they matter because of their contextual usage, their historical and political meaning.

When someone tells me that liberalism is "the social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise" yes, its not wrong. But someone who in our current society that is not politically educated might think that its just a basic ideology that promotes progressism... when in reality the political reality of liberalism is the opposite:
- It promotes and idealistic vision of humanity
- It promotes capitalistic values
- It promotes the myth of meritocracy
- And its an ideology that has a lot of porosity with right wing and far right values.

So we must extend our reach to the contextual reality of words, not stick to their definitions. any linguists will tell you that sticking to dictionnaries is damaging to understand language.

 

[Peroroncino]

I'm not saying that we should end definition. I'm saying that we should end the injonction of sticking to definition during discussions. Word matter, but they matter because of their contextual usage, their historical and political meaning.

When someone tells me that liberalism is "the social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise" yes, its not wrong. But someone who in our current society that is not politically educated might think that its just a basic ideology that promotes progressism... when in reality the political reality of liberalism is the opposite:
- It promotes and idealistic vision of humanity
- It promotes capitalistic values
- It promotes the myth of meritocracy
- And its an ideology that has a lot of porosity with right wing and far right values.

So we must extend our reach to the contextual reality of words, not stick to their definitions. any linguists will tell you that sticking to dictionnaries is damaging to understand language.

i see so we only change definitions whenever it suits you, got it

 

[Ravagerblade]

Those who ignore History are doomed to repeat it. Sooner or later ain't nothing going to stop you from going to the extremes to punish people who don't agree with your own Neo World Views.

 

[Logiko]

i see so we only change definitions whenever it suits you, got it

I see that you didn't understand what I said..

Those who ignore History are doomed to repeat it. Sooner or later ain't nothing going to stop you from going to the extremes to punish people who don't agree with your own Neo World Views.

That's why we must look at the historical and political context of words to understand them, not just depoliticized definitions.

Looking only at definitions is a way to forget about history.

 

[Peroroncino]

I see that you didn't understand what I said..



That's why we must look at the historical and political context of words to understand them, not just depoliticized definitions.

Looking only at definitions is a way to forget about history.

oh i understood all right, you made up your own definition of liberalism and then you expect others to argue not with reality but with your made up definitions of it.
I see why they ignore you, one cannot argue against someone else's imagination

 

[Logiko]

oh i understood all right, you made up your own definition of liberalism and then you expect others to argue not with reality but with your made up definitions of it.

I did not made up any definition. I explained the political reality behind the concept. If you want I could also explain its historical context from its English origin to the appropriation of enlightened philosophers (Kant for ex)... but I'm sure you would deny that as well.. right ?

 

[Peroroncino]

I did not made up any definition. I explained the political reality behind the concept. If you want I could also explain its historical context from its English origin to the appropriation of enlightened philosophers (Kant for ex)... but I'm sure you would deny that as well.. right ?

whether it's the political reality or not is a matter of opinion but arguing with you is pointless because in your world words mean whatever you want them to

 

[Logiko]

whether it's the political reality or not is a matter of opinion

No its not. Its what liberalism is mate. Its not "relative"

You can promote this ideology if you want, but you need to understand what it is.

 

[Zenos7]

Are we going by actual definitions or made up versions that we personally prefer?

Never go by actual definitions

Post automatically merged: Apr 13, 2024

I'm not saying that we should end definition. I'm saying that we should end the injonction of sticking to definition during discussions. Word matter, but they matter because of their contextual usage, their historical and political meaning.

You know dictionaries can cover multiple definitions for words depending on context, right?

 

[Logiko]

You know dictionaries can cover multiple definitions for words depending on context, right?

Indeed, and those definition might be interesting to start a subject, not necessaraly when we dive deeper in the historical and political reality of words.

Language is a living thing. Dictionnaries are not the best tool to take that into account.

 

[Starbound Beast D. Draig]

Spoiler: OMG!!! NO WAY!!! F@CK!!!

 

[Tobra]

Iran launched drones on their way to israel

hope they destroy each other 🙏

 

[Phoenix D. King]

Iran launched drones on their way to israel

hope they destroy each other 🙏

the best outcome ofc

 

[Logiko]

Iran launched drones on their way to israel

hope they destroy each other 🙏

What about hoping for a desascalation instead ?

 

[Ravagerblade]

What about hoping for a desascalation instead ?

I'm with you on this one. haha People need to stop dying. and So far just making war hasn't been a good thing.

 

[Tobra]

What about hoping for a desascalation instead ?

hell no

 

[Apollo]

What about hoping for a desascalation instead ?

Pretty much impossible since Israel struck the Iranian embassy in Damascus. Whether it happens will be seen after the attack, but deescalation will not happen on a single front of this conflict while Gaza is still being leveled.

 

[Logiko]

Pretty much impossible since Israel struck the Iranian embassy in Damascus. Whether it happens will be seen after the attack, but deescalation will not happen on a single front of this conflict while Gaza is still being leveled.

Well, hope for the impossible

 

[Natalija]

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1779256852057874718