161
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
161 points (88.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43394 readers
1347 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, if we're supposed to debate the meanings of words we can look up in a dictionary, how could we do anything, let alone build a country? That's the kind of sophistry some corporate lawyer would do.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Y'see...
A lot of things we don't do because we can do them, but because we can't not do them.
Given time and population, you'll build some kind of country, whether you want it or not.
As for "meaning of words we can look up in a dictionary"... My dear, you haven't worked with language long enough to see what I've seen. And let me tell you, dictionaries have more contradictions than any text you can dig up. And that's completely normal. Because this is also what we can't not do, because there's a giant hole at the bottom of all definitions, because the world is an incomprehensible mess, and always will be.
Shit, we can even barely answer basic questions like "what the fuck the colour orange is?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0xWJpr0FY
What we can do, is define words from context to context and hope to navigate those contradictions.
What matters in the end is, if we're at all better of for the way we navigate, or worse. It's the only thing that matters, really.
Oh, really?
How are we having this conversation then?
@pinkdrunkenelephants Somewhat common context and somewhat overlapping experience (both personal and third-party). The overlap is never 100% though. Ask three people, what something is, you'll get four answers. No matter who they are.
I don't know what you mean by context. Define context please. What do you mean by overlap? How do you define people? What does experience mean? What's a "though"? Isn't that that thing you make bread out of?
People can arbitrarily dispute the meaning of any word in bad faith. That's what bad faith arguing general entails. To have any system, we have to assume everyone involved is working in good faith, and to help foster that we have objective, authoritative standards for what words mean, like dictionaries.
The fact that a lot of our lives is based on context and collectively shared, but not articulated understandings of such things serves the point I'm making far more than defeats it. That context is why we don't allow people to dispute the meaning of words, especially basic words -- we already know what those words mean, otherwise we couldn't talk about anything at all, it's how humans are hard-wired. Any genuine dispute can be solved with a dictionary no matter how flawed or imperfect they may be.
Allowing people, corporations really, to dispute basic terms is one of the means by which they destroyed our legal system from the inside, and why so many people have put so much thought into how they personally would form a new system to begin with -- because we all see the rot and want out.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Hmm... How to put it simply.
The entirety of connections between different entities surrounding an entity in question. I'd put it this way.
Now tell us what the word "though" means without a dictionary. Or "is". Or "entity", or "put". Define every single word you used to my satisfaction, and I will concede my point.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Let's do it the way I proposed in my message here: https://mastodon.ml/@drq/111177928748371050
and take the practical approach to this.
Whom would me defining every word you throw at me benefit? Who will be better off?
Me? No. You? Well, it will satisfy your facetiousness, and short term, yes, maybe. But in long term, you've learned nothing and never wanted to. Us together? Nah, you're clearly going to turn this into a competitive situation. Society? Nobody cares.
So, I will have to decline.
What do you mean by benefit? What does "better off" mean? Who gets to define it?
That's the point I'm making. It's why we don't let people dispute terms in debates and why we turn to dictionaries and other authoritative sources if there actually is an issue -- it stops people concern trolling to get around the law.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Yes, but it's important to remember that dictionaries are not god's gospel. It's not some kind of revelation about Life, Universe and Everything. And it's not even a naturally occurring phenomenon. It's still just a book (or rather, a database) some dudes or lasses wrote some time ago using their accumulated experience. It still comes from humans. It's still just a fragment of someone's consciousness.
And being, as we (hopefully) know, determines the consciousness. And being is an immensely complex and ever-changing thing. So no dictionary is accurate, ever. So we have lots of them, and all context-dependent.
So it is useful to re-evaluate the definitions you think you know.
Take the same makeup, for example. If someone wants to ban it, they'd better fucking give everyone a clear idea what do they mean by that. Suppose, I'm going to a football (or soccer, depending on who you ask) game and paint my face in the colours of FC I'm a fan of. Am I a criminal now?
I didn't say god's gospel, I said authoritative sources, and they ought to be, because there has to be an arbitrary stopping point for such disputes that both parties have to concede to, otherwise debate in good faith is not possible.
Using definition disputes in such a manner as you propose would prevent the implementation of any law.
@pinkdrunkenelephants
> authoritative
Fine. What is the source of this authority?
The dictionary. That is the point of a dictionary. Its very nature is to be the authoritative source of what words mean.
You can choose to accept that, or if you choose to dispute it, we'll assume you're debating in bad faith, end the discussion, and this court will rule in your opponent's favor.
@pinkdrunkenelephants No, no...
The dictionary is the source of authority for YOU.
What's the source of authority for the dictionary? Where's the root of all authority? Whom will you trust with this job?
🧑⚖️ This court hereby deems you in contempt and in violation of the Good Faith clause of the Constitution of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic, enjoy your 30 days in jail.
See how simple that was? How easy it is to put a stop to arbitrary concern trolling via definition disputes?
I state that every new system we humans set up have clauses just like that one to stop people doing such things, so we can have not only a functional nation, but functional communication, period.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Soo... Ultimately, it's *you*, right? Or is there another answer?
And then we add on another 30 days, and this court officially rules in favor of your opponent. Discussion over.
It's really that simple. The rest of us are trying to have a functional nation and doing what I just did right now is the best way to handle such disputes, because they force the offending party to stop concern trolling.
🤔 I should add an actual Good Faith clause to my own hypothetical Constitution, including rules for debates all parties must adhere to in every conversation, just so stuff like that can't happen anymore. Allowing it to go on was one of the root causes of the collapse of the U.S. and stopping people doing that would go a long way toward ensuring it can't happen anymore.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Look, I commend and admire the power of thought-terminating cliches, they are useful (and this is part of my point as well), but still, I'd like an honest an answer:
Where Do You Think The Root Of All Authority Is?
I have my answer (or at least what I think describes the answer the best), but I'd like to hear from you.
I can't hear you over the ruckus of the court bailiffs dragging you out of the courtroom.
🧑⚖️ Next case. Oh god, did Mrs. Dobbs's dog shit all over Jack Smith's front yard again? I swear to god, don't the fucking cleaning robots do anything worth a damn anymore?
@pinkdrunkenelephants Okay, whatever, looks like you don't want to think about it, which is also fine, it's kinda tough question.
You're refusing to think about what I am explaining to you, and you're doing it deliberately because you think the act of disputing a thing disproves a thing, when in fact it does not. The dictionary is gonna be the final authority on what words mean whether you or I like it or not. Words mean what they mean whether we like it or not. Objective reality does not simply go away because you deny it, and any system we build in the future must accept that as a basic tenet to be able to function.
The debate's been over a while ago. I know you're just going to try to keep talking to get the last word though, and that not only is my point, it's also pretty shameful and against the spirit of the thread -- we actually are trying to have friendly and meaningful debates that you're interrupting because you think concern trolling gives your solipsism validity.
Good day.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Solipsism? What?
Do you even understand what I'm trying to say?
@pinkdrunkenelephants Also, you've only proven my point that "the definition game" has no concievable end. So...
That's why it's bad to let people dispute terms in debates.