As a general rule I don’t engage in definition nitpicking arguments because they’re almost universally fartsniffing contests between people with too high opinions of themselves. That’s why Jordan Peterson does it all the time. There’s a lot of cool information to be gleaned from etymology and linguistics, unfortunately most people only engage with the topic to use as a shiv for some other political point they want to make but are too insecure to directly engage with.
You clearly know what meaning was intended to be conveyed by the word. So if you know what people mean when they say something, why pretend like you don’t? It’s dishonest.
“All governments are inherently authoritarian. […] I have no idea what this individual actually meant. That theyre mad they cant murder someone or theyre mad they cant vote for highly technical government positions that should be based on merit, not popularity.”
See, there it is. You’re trying to softball a political argument by pretending it’s an linguistic argument, and I have no respect for this level of cowardice and dishonesty, nor do I have the patience to beat around the bush looking for the real argument.
Next time, if you want to be taken seriously, just own it instead of bullshitting. Say what you believe and stand on your principles.
Removed by mod
As a general rule I don’t engage in definition nitpicking arguments because they’re almost universally fartsniffing contests between people with too high opinions of themselves. That’s why Jordan Peterson does it all the time. There’s a lot of cool information to be gleaned from etymology and linguistics, unfortunately most people only engage with the topic to use as a shiv for some other political point they want to make but are too insecure to directly engage with.
You clearly know what meaning was intended to be conveyed by the word. So if you know what people mean when they say something, why pretend like you don’t? It’s dishonest.
Removed by mod
“All governments are inherently authoritarian. […] I have no idea what this individual actually meant. That theyre mad they cant murder someone or theyre mad they cant vote for highly technical government positions that should be based on merit, not popularity.”
See, there it is. You’re trying to softball a political argument by pretending it’s an linguistic argument, and I have no respect for this level of cowardice and dishonesty, nor do I have the patience to beat around the bush looking for the real argument.
Next time, if you want to be taken seriously, just own it instead of bullshitting. Say what you believe and stand on your principles.