BREAKING: MAN CHANGES GLASS OF WATER INTO AN OAK TREE!

[LMNO]

If the intention of the OP is to introduce the concept of subjective semantics, I feel the piece misses the mark.

You really have to already have a basic knowledge of what he's trying to do to understand what he's doing.  Someone with no concept of "words as conceptual placeholders" will not "get" the piece.


[Edit to remove "I disagree" as the starting sentence, because it is too vague]

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or they could just use a dictionary.  People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard.  Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems.  Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.

so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?


I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.

I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.

That's the thing... a person can be both words at the same time.

Well, sure, if Assange is blowing up day care centers between leaks.  But the act of posting the leaks is not terrorism, and saying that it is, is either sloppy thinking or deliberate mud slinging.

[Adios]

Or they could just use a dictionary.  People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard.  Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems.  Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.

so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?


I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.

I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.

Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or they could just use a dictionary.  People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard.  Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems.  Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.

so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?


I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.

I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.

Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.

And declaring that "nothing means anything" doesn't help that situation.

[Adios]

Or they could just use a dictionary.  People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard.  Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems.  Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.

so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?


I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.

I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.

Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.

And declaring that "nothing means anything" doesn't help that situation.

Absolutely.

[Jasper]

We could just compromise and say that anybody who says words have no meaning aren't allowed to act like they do. 

[Adios]

I wonder.

Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?

/tangent

[LMNO]

I wonder.

Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?

/tangent

Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver.  A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated.  The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

We could just compromise and say that anybody who says words have no meaning aren't allowed to act like they do. 

Nope.  I staunchly defend every human's right to be goofy, even if it makes the vein on my head stick out.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wonder.

Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?

/tangent

Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver.  A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated.  The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.

Yep.  Otherwise, AM radio would be an abomination, because that's where Rush Limbaugh spews his garbage.  The medium is irrelevant.

[Adios]

I wonder.

Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?

/tangent

Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver.  A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated.  The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.

This makes me sad, because stupid is a FUBAR condition. Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wonder.

Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?

/tangent

Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver.  A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated.  The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.

This makes me sad, because stupid is a FUBAR condition. Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.

Says you.  They were probably advertisements.

[Phox]

Or they could just use a dictionary.  People who are too stupid to learn the definitions of the words they repeat deserve everything they get, good and hard.  Fact is, it's the demagogues that misuse these words in the same manner - basically speaking - as the OP that have caused half of these problems.  Deciding that words don't actually mean anything furthers their cause.

so no effort should be made to point out to people the ways that they are being manipulated? seems to play right into the evil Illuminati scheme, no?


I hope a skepticism of words is in people's minds as they wrestle with whether Julian Assange is a journalist or terrorist.

I don't know about that, Cram. Words have specific meanings, and the words "terrorist" and "journalist" are no different. People shouldn't be wrestling with the meaning of the words, but the implications of Assange's actions, and whether they qualify as one or the other.

Words have become so twisted and diluted that their original conceptual meanings are lost so often.

But even colloquialisms mean something, and if that meaning is understood by the listener then there shouldn't be a debate over the meaning of the word. A vivid example would be the Greek conception of χάος, and the Roman conception of Chaos. χάος was void. Empty void. Chaos was a jumbled mass of matter with everything out of place, despite being a direct borrowing of the Greek word. Even so, if you would say chaos to a Roman, they would understand it as their conception, and not quibble about what the Greeks thought, even if they were educated enough to know. Cross-cultural communication may suffer, but internal communication does not. Unless someone decides to be an ass and says "But, Ovid, the Greeks thought...."

I lost my point somewhere, but I think I was trying to say that we shouldn't further complicate it by trying to fuck with the definitions of words we already understand.

[Adios]

I wonder.

Could a case be made that the internet is destroying communication?

/tangent

Nah, I'm gonna skew towards Roger's POV here, and say that sloppy/manipulative thinking is the culprit, both from the sender and the receiver.  A word is used improperly, then understood improperly, then re-communicated.  The internet is the medium, but the message contains the flaw.

This makes me sad, because stupid is a FUBAR condition. Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.

Says you.  They were probably advertisements.

"Fresh Wooly Mammoth Meat. $1.50 per pound."

[LMNO]

Many times I have wished we still communicated with cave drawings. They were easier to understand.

Nonsense.  The ability to communicate complex ideas is language's greatest accomplishment.  Sometimes, you may have to use more words than you would like to, but it is not language's fault.  To be more specific, language does not contain the (majority) of the flaw, the users of language inject the flaw.