On the usage of words for Denunciation rather than understanding

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

I perceive that often words are used and even transformed in meaning for the sake of denunciation rather than understanding in present society.

This can be about many different words like for ex. "communism" or "terrorism".

Basically, the observation of words being used for denunciation comes when words must be dismissive in a social/debate context but when the words is not used by it's theoretical definition/not relevant to the topic at hand. As such for ex. One could argue that it has often be so that people have argued certain ideas of others to be "communist" in nature when they might not be so. Afaik there are even trope's like "that is fascism" or "that is communism".

Why do people do that? What is their interest or impetuous for that sort of behavior when it's clearly wrong. Of course not everyone has that much difficulty to understand words, but some clearly do. And clearly, some have obvious interests in it, but some don't seem to have any.

The obvious issue is that using words for denunciation makes understanding them more difficult. And when such things get often perpetuated in discussions it makes understanding terminology in discussion difficult, and confusing, and wasteful on words trying to explain what stuff really is about.

 

[Traitorfish]

Partly it's just intellectual laziness; thinking is hard and people have Special Important Selves to cultivate.

But you're right, there's often more to it than that. I think a lot of it is an attempt, conscious or not, to shape the sphere of debate. When you label somebody a "communist" or "terrorist" or whatever, you're placing them outside the terms of acceptable discourse. In the right circle, simply labelling somebody "liberal" or "conservative" does the same thing. It's an attempt to impose limits on expression and implicitly on thought, but through enforcing norms rather than through force. That can be hard to combat, because that basic mechanism is on some level necessary for societies to function; simply declaring that everyone not only can but should say whatever they like will only make it difficult for people to cooperate each other.

So because it's a question of norms rather than commands, there's no one authority we can challenge, and because the mechanism is not fundamentally harmful and is probably in fact beneficial, it's hard to challenge it directly as a rhetorical device, rather than simply challenging narrower details like the accuracy of the allegation or the legitimacy of the accuser's categories. That makes it a powerful technique, and because it's both powerful and quite broadly accessible- it's almost, in it's own perverse way, democratic- it follows that it's popular.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Agreed. Usually the use of a pejorative, whether the word has some other meaning or not, has an intention that could be just as well met by some other or perhaps even any other pejorative. Which one is chosen is a function of environment, not alternate (or actual) meaning. Pretty much all of them, in actual use, just boil down to "You other!"

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Partly it's just intellectual laziness; thinking is hard and people have Special Important Selves to cultivate.

I agree that it's partly trough this.

But you're right, there's often more to it than that. I think a lot of it is an attempt, conscious or not, to shape the sphere of debate. When you label somebody a "communist" or "terrorist" or whatever, you're placing them outside the terms of acceptable discourse. In the right circle, simply labelling somebody "liberal" or "conservative" does the same thing. It's an attempt to impose limits on expression and implicitly on thought, but through enforcing norms rather than through force.

I agree to that too. My mind wondered off on the part "concious or unconcious", that is indeed a tough one to explore. Giant conspiracy's seem like unlikely, unconcious seems likely for various personal reasons like interrest or prestige in a bias or peer pressure sort of way.

But lets take an ex. like say Fox new. This is a you probably know supposedly an information channel. Do you believe Fox news has ever engaged in this behaviour, if so do you think it was concious or unconcious and in that the work of one individual or many individuals?

That can be hard to combat, because that basic mechanism is on some level necessary for societies to function; simply declaring that everyone not only can but should say whatever they like will only make it difficult for people to cooperate each other.

Hmm i wonder if you could substantiate this claim more as i'm unsure. I guess having people say what they want comes down to free speech. There is also political correctness say that in presence puts some limit on this. Yet where it regard political correctness, it seems that one should rather denunciate a person with the correct word than a wrong word, or that woudl seem more interresting. Afcourse that regards the public sphere. When it comes to a need for dicipline there seems an onvious interrest in having free speech limited in some sense. But the question remains if this needs to entail denunciation via wrong term usage. Well certaintly it can be funny i agree to that.

So because it's a question of norms rather than commands, there's no one authority we can challenge, and because the mechanism is not fundamentally harmful and is probably in fact beneficial, it's hard to challenge it directly as a rhetorical device, rather than simply challenging narrower details like the accuracy of the allegation or the legitimacy of the accuser's categories. That makes it a powerful technique, and because it's both powerful and quite broadly accessible- it's almost, in it's own perverse way, democratic- it follows that it's popular.

I understand that humans themselfs define/shape the meaning of words and i guess how this fits in this argument. yet i'm not sure if it's wholly so constructive to debate or understanding, just as it often doesn't seem so on forums, regardless if it might be democratic.

Still i think i need to ponder youre reply somewhat further, it looked like a rather thoughtfull reply and it did make me think about a few things which are complex to understand.

Agreed. Usually the use of a pejorative, whether the word has some other meaning or not, has an intention that could be just as well met by some other or perhaps even any other pejorative. Which one is chosen is a function of environment, not alternate (or actual) meaning. Pretty much all of them, in actual use, just boil down to "You other!"

I had the feeling too that most of it boiled down indeed to that.