This piece gets at an element of the ongoing debate over whether certain terms — “lie,” “coup,” “fascist,” “socialist” — should be applied today. The two sides are sort of talking past each other, with some people focusing on LOGICAL definitions & others on EMOTIONAL ones.
https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1351234021825634307
One person says, “Well, I define [Term X] as [definition], and event A, while terrible, doesn’t fit that definition. Rather, we should use [alternative technical term].”
Others basically argue, “Stop quibbling! This is bad, let’s use the term that conveys how bad it is!”
Others basically argue, “Stop quibbling! This is bad, let’s use the term that conveys how bad it is!”
People using “emotional definitions” don’t want to use a dry technical term to describe something or someone they dislike. They want to use a term with a powerful (negative) emotional valence, to capture the proper attitude to the target.
For someone using an “emotional definition,” someone else arguing that “Actually, this term as commonly defined doesn’t apply” isn’t just quibbling, they’re in effect defending the target by not using words with the necessary emotional value.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
