Why do you think groups like us LGBT+ and less reputable groups like SJW's and feminists waste so much time arguing semantics and redefining words at a whim, all the time getting angry at others when they don't understand what they are actually talking about? Rather than sticking to the universally recognised dictionary definitions of words, people invent their own definitions and then argue when others use the actual definitions when making a case? Happy days
Terms change. Words evolve in meaning. As I like to think of it, the difference between a religion and a cult is time; time can legitimize what is once perceived as a cult. Same with words and their meanings. What once is a fringe definition adopted by a few can later with time enter the pantheon of words. This is not to say I agree or understand many different definitions outside of the more traditional demarcations of sex, gender, and sexuality.
An actual definition only refers to the currently accepted most-used definition; definitions always have the potential to change, and words may be used one way in a common sense and another way in an academic sense. That said, I agree that arguing semantics is often a distraction. It's a way to avoid actually arguing about content; by turning the argument into one over definitions you have effectively evaded actually arguing about substance. For example, instead of arguing about a set of feminist points, one may choose to instead argue about what defines a feminist and how those particular feminist points don't fall under the definition of "feminist", but effectively, the points are not actually be argued about.
Like Alamo^ said, words change. They didn't pop into existence at a certain time and from that point on have had one objective meaning. Language is fundamentally subjective. Ideology is also quite intrinsic to the human experience, especially in this day and age. When ideologies clash, the carriers of those ideas will, motivated by the ensuing cognitive dissonance, argue what the "truth" or the best interpretation of the matter at hand is. It's only human. ---------- Post added 2nd Jul 2016 at 05:47 PM ---------- @Libertino I agree that arguing semantics can be distracting, but sometimes it is entirely necessary. Take the matter of Bernie Sanders, for example. A lot of people have been skeptical of him because "He's a socialist!!!!!!!!" Well, he is a self-defined socialist, for some reason that I cannot grasp, but he is, in fact, not a socialist in the academic sense. Therefore, if someone makes the argument A: Socialism is bad B: Bernie Sanders is a socialist C: Bernie Sanders is bad, then it is necessary to clarify that, no, Bernie Sanders is, in the academically accepted sense, not a socialist (a person who advocates for the common ownership over the means of production), but a social democrat. One has to be able to speak the same language to be able to have an argument. That includes using the same concepts, even if you value them differently.
True, but in that case, the semantics is being used as a distraction, just from the other direction. People are getting bogged down into what a "socialist" is, not actually paying attention to what Bernie has to say and what his political convictions are (if they did so, they'd see he's not a "socialist" in the "evil" sense that they imagine). A good example would be the word "homophobia". We all know what it means. We all know it doesn't just mean "fear of homosexuals", but those who do not wish to acknowledge their homophobia appeal to semantics, claiming that homophobia can only mean "fear" and since they dislike homosexuals and homosexuality, they are therefore not homophobic. But this is, again, a semantic distraction (not to mention completely fallacious. The word "homophobia" cannot be defined solely by its Greek constituents otherwise it would mean "fear of same", not to mention chemists use terms like "hydrophobic" to refer to substances that repel water; clearly here they are not implying the substances are actually afraid of water).
Well, I'd agree if by that you mean the He's a socialist!!-person I mentioned in my example above is the one trying to use that as a distraction (not sure exactly which way you meant here). The other person is really just making sure that the framework of the discussion is in accordance with, like, reality. The example with the homophobia thing is a good one.
Confirmation bias. For instance, they're trying to change the definition of racism from "to hate someone for their race" to the whole "racism equals power plus prejudice" fallacy. Since there are increasingly fewer racist white people, it's become harder to simply blame "the white man" for people's problems. So of course they come up with ways to call out whoever they want for supposedly being bigoted, such as changing the definition of racism so only white people can be racist, saying people are using microaggressions, and silencing any non-white people who disagree with them, saying they have "internalized racism". All to make sure they still have "bigotry" to fight, and feel good about themselves for being "progressive".
Because definitions change overtime and some of the old ones are problematic. For example virginity is supposed to only include heterosexual sex, and only refers to women, yet some people call men "virgins". That's redefining the word. Rape originally only referred to male-on-female acts, and didn't include marital acts. Saying a wife can be raped by her husband is redefining rape. Marriage was between a man and a woman. Saying two men can marry is redefining marriage. And yet I have no problems with any of these definitions. They change to be more inclusive. On the other hand, the fact that people make up a gender and sexuality for almost anything nowadays is unneeded. We don't really need half of the words we make up considering how many sexualities and genders fit the definition just fine, and the only differences are variable personalities involved.
I don't recall saying it doesn't exist. I hope I made it clear that I'm talking about SJWs; The people who are exploiting these causes to feel good about themselves, under the guise of activism.
Fair enough, but you did say that people did dishonest things . That would indicate that there wasn't any bigotry were it not for people trying to prove there is, would it not? At least that would be my interpretation.
