When did the definition of terms stop mattering? (1 Viewer)

[AAABatteries]

Some of the recent threads and discussion reminded me of something I've wondered about for a while.  When did the definitions of terms stop mattering?

Fascist, Liberal, Marxist, Conservative, Socialist, etc...  All these words just get tossed around and used totally incorrectly by people.  I know in some cases it's intentional to label folks, or scare other folks or just out of ignorance but it's gotten to the point that these labels are meaningless.

I'm reminded of my Networking 101 class many years ago at Georgia Tech.  The professor was this old codger who looked like he was around when Bell invented the telephone.  His first lecture he talked to us about what he felt like made networking so complex and difficult for the average person to digest.  His answer - terminology.  You have to get people talking the same language before you can make progress and have valuable discussion or solve real-world problems.

Anyway, I doubt this thread will have legs but it's been bugging me for a while.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A few of these terms never had an agreed-upon meaning in the first place.  "Fascist" and "socialist" are two good examples.  Political scientists can give you precise definitions of both words, and those definitions have almost nothing to do with how they're used in the vernacular.  For people on the left (right), "fascist" ("socialist') is a just a word that means "person or thing I don't like." 

"Conservative" and "liberal" used to be reasonably well-defined, but I generally have to read further into people's posts to figure out what they mean when they use these terms.  I know how I think about them, but my understanding of these words isn't shared by everyone.  For example, in my mind Joe Biden is a liberal and Carlos Maza is not a liberal.  Some people would instead say that Maza is more liberal than Biden.  I hate that way of thinking about it, but the important thing for communication is for me to understand how other people are using these words, not how I would ideally like to see them used. 

Not disagreeing at all.  Just commenting. 

 

[AAABatteries]

A few of these terms never had an agreed-upon meaning in the first place.  "Fascist" and "socialist" are two good examples.  Political scientists can give you precise definitions of both words, and those definitions have almost nothing to do with how they're used in the vernacular.  For people on the left (right), "fascist" ("socialist') is a just a word that means "person or thing I don't like." 

"Conservative" and "liberal" used to be reasonably well-defined, but I generally have to read further into people's posts to figure out what they mean when they use these terms.  I know how I think about them, but my understanding of these words isn't shared by everyone.  For example, in my mind Joe Biden is a liberal and Carlos Maza is not a liberal.  Some people would instead say that Maza is more liberal than Biden.  I hate that way of thinking about it, but the important thing for communication is for me to understand how other people are using these words, not how I would ideally like to see them used. 

Not disagreeing at all.  Just commenting. 

Yep, exactly.  Granted around here they are probably used a lot of the time to generalize or antagonize but the bolded gets to the heart of what that old codger was saying.  If we want to have a serious discussion about something we need to have some agreed to terms that we use.

 

[dgreen]

I remember when a lot of people were making a big deal about Trump's claim to have the largest inauguration crowd. I thought it was silly and a bit weird for Trump to keep saying it, but I was also surprised at all the back lash and how people were adamant that that was a big thing because "words matter". I don't know if that was the start, but I'm pretty sure it goes back at least that far. 

Or maybe the problem goes back to "irregardless". Or maybe how so many people use "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It's all over the place, and a huge reason people can't even have conversations anymore.   Racism, woman, CRT, mental illness, mass shooting, socialist, violence, and many other things I can't think of offhand that people don't use the same way or can't define and make it so people talk right past each other.  

 

[Snoopy]

Or maybe the problem goes back to "irregardless". 

So much so that Webster's dictionary added it: https://theplantain.com/websters-dictionary-adds-irregardless-regardless-of-the-fact-that-it-isnt-a-word/

*sigh*

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So much so that Webster's dictionary added it: https://theplantain.com/websters-dictionary-adds-irregardless-regardless-of-the-fact-that-it-isnt-a-word/

*sigh*

Seeing the English language abused this way makes me literally burst into flames.

 

[Stoneworker]

A few of these terms never had an agreed-upon meaning in the first place.  "Fascist" and "socialist" are two good examples.  Political scientists can give you precise definitions of both words, and those definitions have almost nothing to do with how they're used in the vernacular.

For people on the right, "socialist' is a just a word that means "person or thing I don't like." 

Not necessarily. Bernie Sanders and AOC are self-described (democratic) socialists.

Therefore I feel quite comfortable deviating from literal poly sci definitions of socialism and thus labeling Progressive "big government" policies (e.g. Med4All) as being socialist.

Obviously it is always somewhat hyperbolic, and not technically correct when I do so, but nevertheless they've brought it on themselves.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not necessarily. Bernie Sanders and AOC are self-described (democratic) socialists.

Therefore I feel quite comfortable deviating from literal poly sci definitions of socialism and thus labeling Progressive "big government" policies (e.g. Med4All) as being socialist.

Obviously it is always somewhat hyperbolic, and not technically correct when I do so, but nevertheless they've brought it on themselves.

I get your point, but that word is often used with a bit of vitriol and requires people to ignore socialist or big government policies we do have and they are fine with or their party supports.  

 

[zoonation]

The way people use the word “communism” or “communist” is the most glaring example.  

 

[joffer]

Maybe it didn’t start with the election of Obama, but it that was a big bump

 

[Cjw_55106]

We cant get a certain group to agree what the word "woman" means. And you want people to agree with words that have (or should have) more nuance?

The real answer is, people on both sides care mainly about negatively labeling the other side. You have provided examples in the OP. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was constantly called a Nazi. He's not a Nazi, but whatever. 

 

[timschochet]

I make fun of it but usually it doesn’t bother me. There are, however, instances when it does: 

1. As a descendent of Holocaust victims and survivors, I don’t appreciate Nazi analogies. When AOC compared refugee detention camps under Trump to Dachau I was deeply offended (despite my agreement with her on condemning the treatment in those camps.) When certain posters here compared sex change operations for trans to Dr. Mengele I was also offended. Stuff like that pisses me off, I can’t help it. 
 

2. There is a tendency here to conflate the democratic socialism of a Bernie Sanders or the Squad to the horrors of Communist dictatorships. This is a historical fallacy and very dangerous. In actuality, the Social Democrats (ideological  ancestors of Bernie and AOC) were the biggest enemies of the Communist dictatorships and very often their main victims. 

 

[Captain Cranks]

Some of the recent threads and discussion reminded me of something I've wondered about for a while.  When did the definitions of terms stop mattering?

Fascist, Liberal, Marxist, Conservative, Socialist, etc...  All these words just get tossed around and used totally incorrectly by people.  I know in some cases it's intentional to label folks, or scare other folks or just out of ignorance but it's gotten to the point that these labels are meaningless.

I'm reminded of my Networking 101 class many years ago at Georgia Tech.  The professor was this old codger who looked like he was around when Bell invented the telephone.  His first lecture he talked to us about what he felt like made networking so complex and difficult for the average person to digest.  His answer - terminology.  You have to get people talking the same language before you can make progress and have valuable discussion or solve real-world problems.

Anyway, I doubt this thread will have legs but it's been bugging me for a while.

It feels to me like it's all a function of the propaganda that's being injected into the system by bad actors. Same answer to the question of 'when did reality and facts stop mattering?' Keep repeating something over and over and eventually it becomes truth.

All the terms you mentioned have a negative connotation; thus they're being tied to the opposition without legitimacy knowing that the end user isn't critical enough to know better (or even care).  Unfortunately, it's only getting worse. Satanists. Pedophiliacs. Groomers. All words with negative connotations that are incorrectly attached to the opposition to score political points.

 

[Stoneworker]

I get your point, but that word is often used with a bit of vitriol and requires people to ignore socialist or big government policies we do have and they are fine with or their party supports.  

I'm 100% sure you are smart enough to figure out when someone misuses the term...vs. others who may simply enjoy the mental health benefits of poking fun at socialistas.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The "irregardless" thing above is the real crime here.

The other things suck too.

 

[Captain Cranks]

We cant get a certain group to agree what the word "woman" means. And you want people to agree with words that have (or should have) more nuance?

The real answer is, people on both sides care mainly about negatively labeling the other side. You have provided examples in the OP. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was constantly called a Nazi. He's not a Nazi, but whatever. 

Nazi wasn't an appropriate tag since it suggests he's capable of genocide.  However, he is absolutely a wannabe authoritarian.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Nazi wasn't an appropriate tag since it suggests he's capable of genocide.  However, he is absolutely a wannabe authoritarian.

OK? Unless you consider that pesky genocide stuff a minor detail, I'm not sure what your point is?

 

[Captain Cranks]

OK? Unless you consider that pesky genocide stuff a minor detail, I'm not sure what your point is?

I'm agreeing with you on the Nazi stuff. Adding the "why" he might have been called that, however. Not justifying. Just explaining.

 

[dozer]

I'm 100% sure you are smart enough to figure out when someone misuses the term...vs. others who may simply enjoy the mental health benefits of poking fun at socialistas.

Sounds like something a fascist would say.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I'm agreeing with you on the Nazi stuff. Adding the "why" he might have been called that, however. Not justifying. Just explaining.

Fair enough, but that's kind of the issue with all of these. There's always a reason the terms are used. It just seems the reasoning is getting stretched further and further. 

 

[timschochet]

I'm agreeing with you on the Nazi stuff. Adding the "why" he might have been called that, however. Not justifying. Just explaining.

It’s lazy thinking to call Trump, or any American politician, a Nazi. 
I’ve been criticized for using the term “lazy thinking” recently by @FairWarning and others; they’ve accused me of using it as an attack against conservatism. But it’s not; liberals are just as guilty. It’s becoming more and more prevalent in our society: people looking for simplistic answers to complex or nuanced issues. I think I will have to use the term more often. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

I make fun of it but usually it doesn’t bother me. There are, however, instances when it does: 

1. As a descendent of Holocaust victims and survivors, I don’t appreciate Nazi analogies. When AOC compared refugee detention camps under Trump to Dachau I was deeply offended (despite my agreement with her on condemning the treatment in those camps.) When certain posters here compared sex change operations for trans to Dr. Mengele I was also offended. Stuff like that pisses me off, I can’t help it. 
 

Agree.  My grandmother came here during WW2 with her father after fleeing Nazi's in Europe.  Her mother stayed behind to tend to her sick grandmother.  She never saw either of them again.  Whenever I see anyone compare any current day politician or party to Nazi's it rubs me the wrong the way.  

 

[FairWarning]

It’s lazy thinking to call Trump, or any American politician, a Nazi. 
I’ve been criticized for using the term “lazy thinking” recently by @FairWarning and others; they’ve accused me of using it as an attack against conservatism. But it’s not; liberals are just as guilty. It’s becoming more and more prevalent in our society: people looking for simplistic answers to complex or nuanced issues. I think I will have to use the term more often. 

I guess it goes back to voting based on your beliefs vs the person.  It’s tough now because the two sides don’t show much interest in working together.

 

[Dickies]

I'm agreeing with you on the Nazi stuff. Adding the "why" he might have been called that, however. Not justifying. Just explaining.

I don't remember him directly being called a Nazi, but I think you could make the argument he was a Nazi sympathizer after his Charlottesville comments.

In reality I just think he's incapable of saying something negative about something that he thinks has the possibility of growing his power/wealth.

 

[AAABatteries]

Yeah, the Nazi one definitely bothers me and is a really good example, maybe the best one.

 

[Whyatt]

Lots of good answers here, but in my view it all started here.

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

It seems to me this started when the vocal minority called GW Bush a Nazi for invading Iraq.  Just horrible for so many reasons.  Around that time liberals were then referred to socialists. Not as bad as Nazi but still horrible and inaccurate. 

Again, just going by memory which admittedly can be less than reliable lately. 

 

[The Commish]

When the minion leaders began to understand just how uniformed the minions were...thats when. 

 

[BladeRunner]

It seems to me this started when the vocal minority called GW Bush a Nazi for invading Iraq.  Just horrible for so many reasons.  Around that time liberals were then referred to socialists. Not as bad as Nazi but still horrible and inaccurate. 

Again, just going by memory which admittedly can be less than reliable lately. 

Here's the problem with the bolded - you literally have elected Socialists in your party.  And they grow in size every election.  There are no Nazi's in the GOP.

 

[timschochet]

Here's the problem with the bolded - you literally have elected Socialists in your party.  And they grow in size every election.  There are no Nazi's in the GOP.

This is true to an extent. They are actually Democratic Socialists, which is slightly but significantly different from pure socialism/Communism in that it strives to achieve leftist solutions through peaceful democratic means. YOU have never understood this difference which is why you continue to make comparisons to the horrors of Soviet Russia. What you really need to understand is that if Berne Sanders and AOC were living in the old USSR, they would be dissidents locked away in some gulag, or murdered. 

 

[timschochet]

The other significant difference is: despite calling themselves “Democratic Socialists” neither Bernie nor AOC have ever espoused that the state should own the means of production, which is the core principle of socialism. Instead they push for the typical leftist smorgasbord: much more taxation, redistribution of wealth, tighter government controls. It’s pure leftism (not liberalism) and I don’t like it, but it ain’t socialism, no matter what they want to call themselves. 

 

[Stoneworker]

Evidently the leader of the free world can freely use the term "socialist" to describe their own, but somehow no one else can.

President Biden says he's not trying to pull the country to the left: "I'm not Bernie Sanders. I'm not a socialist.

https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1483929051630907392

 

[timschochet]

Evidently the leader of the free world can freely use the term "socialist" to describe their own, but somehow no one else can.

President Biden says he's not trying to pull the country to the left: "I'm not Bernie Sanders. I'm not a socialist.

https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1483929051630907392

Well he’s wrong too. See my above post. 
 

And nobody is suggesting that you can’t  call Bernie a socialist; I’m simply arguing that it’s inaccurate. 

 

[Stoneworker]

Well he’s wrong too. See my above post. 
 

And nobody is suggesting that you can’t  call Bernie a socialist; I’m simply arguing that it’s inaccurate. 

Nope. It's not inaccurate, just colloquial shorthand.

Technically speaking the U.S. is not a "democracy." It is a "representative democracy." Yet everyone on the planet shortens the term for convenience.

Ditto for "democratic socialists."

 

[Herb]

It feels to me like it's all a function of the propaganda that's being injected into the system by bad actors. Same answer to the question of 'when did reality and facts stop mattering?' Keep repeating something over and over and eventually it becomes truth.

All the terms you mentioned have a negative connotation; thus they're being tied to the opposition without legitimacy knowing that the end user isn't critical enough to know better (or even care).  Unfortunately, it's only getting worse. Satanists. Pedophiliacs. Groomers. All words with negative connotations that are incorrectly attached to the opposition to score political points.

Good post and I agree. IMO you can trace it back to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media machine. Rush led this charge by turning the word 'liberal' into a pejorative, and coining really crass terms like 'feminazi.' His millions of listeners and dozens of successors, including Roger Ailes and Fox News, upped the ante by broadly labeling traditional media, Democrats and liberals as 'the enemy', and it grew from there.

Trump’s inauguration crowd nonsense and KAC's "alternative facts" statement I think really brought the whole thing into the mainstream public vernacular.

To be clear, I'm not trying to absolve those outside of conservative media from inflaming the situation, this is just my perception of how it really began.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Just more proof we need term limits. 

 

[(HULK)]

When election results stopped actually mattering and a mob stormed the Capitol with the intent of overturning the will of the people, it became fair game to call Trumpists fascists. The shoe fits.

 

[roadkill1292]

When election results stopped actually mattering and a mob stormed the Capitol with the intent of overturning the will of the people, it became fair game to call Trumpists fascists. The shoe fits.

This is kinda why the "election fraud" beliefs are so critical despite the lack of evidence. Without that to hang on to, then all you're doing is rejecting democracy.

The Trump Party is pretty much there. Better Donald than democracy.

 

[jon_mx]

When election results stopped actually mattering and a mob stormed the Capitol with the intent of overturning the will of the people, it became fair game to call Trumpists fascists. The shoe fits.

And I see the term fascist best applies to social justice warriors and wokism and their impact is far bigger and leading us is down a horrific path of a totalitarian society where the concept of family is being completely destroyed.  Wokism is creating a society of individuals consumed by narcissism with the most worthless generation of complainers and victims ever seen.  There is nothing positive coming from wokism.  It is a population who will be completely dependant upon a massive and powerful corporate-government  support system to provide for their insane needs.  The mass physchosis which is inflicting the current generation will demand a fascist like solution to provide for their safe spaces and to take care of these non-functional beings.  

 

[Alex P Keaton]

And I see the term fascist best applies to social justice warriors and wokism and their impact is far bigger and leading us is down a horrific path of a totalitarian society where the concept of family is being completely destroyed.  Wokism is creating a society of individuals consumed by narcissism with the most worthless generation of complainers and victims ever seen.  There is nothing positive coming from wokism.  It is a population who will be completely dependant upon a massive and powerful corporate-government  support system to provide for their insane needs.  The mass physchosis which is inflicting the current generation will demand a fascist like solution to provide for their safe spaces and to take care of these non-functional beings.  

I don’t know what any of this means

 

[shadrap]

Some of the recent threads and discussion reminded me of something I've wondered about for a while.  When did the definitions of terms stop mattering?

Fascist, Liberal, Marxist, Conservative, Socialist, etc...  All these words just get tossed around and used totally incorrectly by people.  I know in some cases it's intentional to label folks, or scare other folks or just out of ignorance but it's gotten to the point that these labels are meaningless.

I'm reminded of my Networking 101 class many years ago at Georgia Tech.  The professor was this old codger who looked like he was around when Bell invented the telephone.  His first lecture he talked to us about what he felt like made networking so complex and difficult for the average person to digest.  His answer - terminology.  You have to get people talking the same language before you can make progress and have valuable discussion or solve real-world problems.

Anyway, I doubt this thread will have legs but it's been bugging me for a while.

just. couldn't. agree. more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shadrap]

It seems to me this started when the vocal minority called GW Bush a Nazi for invading Iraq.  Just horrible for so many reasons.  Around that time liberals were then referred to socialists. Not as bad as Nazi but still horrible and inaccurate. 

Again, just going by memory which admittedly can be less than reliable lately. 

welcome to our club.  I'm vice president of it.  I think.

 

[jon_mx]

I don’t know what any of this means

Of course you don't.   But when you hear people talk about being cisgender, or gender fluid, or intersex, or gender nonconforming, you listen to the word soup and pretend these mentally confused people are enlightened. 

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Of course you don't.   But when you hear people talk about being cisgender, or gender fluid, or intersex, or gender nonconforming, you listen to the word soup and pretend these mentally confused people are enlightened. 

I have no idea what this means either, but appreciate you telling me what I think.  That’s always a productive way to have a conversation.

 

[jon_mx]

I have no idea what this means either, but appreciate you telling me what I think.  That’s always a productive way to have a conversation.

Nobody really does, but today's youth are being categorized into these buckets at a very young age.  You ask any teenage girl and they can tell you a dozen different genders and which category they identify with.  

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Nobody really does, but today's youth are being categorized into these buckets at a very young age.  You ask any teenage girl and they can tell you a dozen different genders and which category they identify with.  

What does that have to do with you telling me what I think?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I remember when a lot of people were making a big deal about Trump's claim to have the largest inauguration crowd. I thought it was silly and a bit weird for Trump to keep saying it, but I was also surprised at all the back lash and how people were adamant that that was a big thing because "words matter". I don't know if that was the start, but I'm pretty sure it goes back at least that far. 

Or maybe the problem goes back to "irregardless". Or maybe how so many people use "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means.

"Words matter" (or "words mean things") was Rush Limbaugh's shtick in the early nineties.

I do think lying about the inauguration crowd size was important because, for Trump, it was a loyalty test. He wanted to see who among his hangers-on would be willing to defend and repeat his blatant lies. It was important for him to know that up front because telling shameless lies was going to be an ongoing part of his overall strategy and he needed to know who was on board with it.

An ambiguous prevarication like most politicians produce wasn't good enough: as a loyalty test, the whopper needed to be demonstratively, obviously false.

The inaugural crowd size bunkum was a very early precursor to (and test run for) "the election was stolen."

 

[jon_mx]

What does that have to do with you telling me what I think?

Do you not cater to the transgender agenda which has inflicting social media, our institutions and our educational system?  You seem to be critical of my synopsis of the issue but not so critical of the craziness going on.  

 

[jon_mx]

"Words matter" (or "words mean things") was Rush Limbaugh's shtick in the early nineties.

I do think lying about the inauguration crowd size was important because, for Trump, it was a loyalty test. He wanted to see who among his hangers-on would be willing to defend and repeat his blatant lies. It was important for him to know that up front because telling shameless lies was going to be an ongoing part of his overall strategy and he needed to know who was on board with it.

An ambiguous prevarication like most politicians produce wasn't good enough: as a loyalty test, the whopper needed to be demonstratively, obviously false.

The inaugural crowd size was a very early precursor to (and test run for) "the election was stolen."

 But these loyalty tests have been going on in most of our major universities for decades.  You can not advance or even get your foot in the door if you do not belong to the religion of gender ideology, global warming doomsday, a d critical race theory.