You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

David_Gerard comments on In Defense of Tone Arguments - Less Wrong Discussion

24 Post author: OrphanWilde 19 July 2012 07:48PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (172)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 July 2012 03:38:49PM -2 points [-]

I fear you are too late: it's a meaning the word has in English now, and it's one that's actually useful.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 20 July 2012 06:04:06PM 2 points [-]

The English language is not homogeneous. It's only useful among that set of people who agree with that meaning; considering this is also the set that agrees with you about your arguments, the word has no business being in any arguments meant to convince people you're correct.

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 July 2012 08:03:53PM -2 points [-]

This reads like an attempt to say "words mean what me and my friends want them to mean" as a response to "it's technical jargon with a particular and useful meaning". I appreciate you don't want the term to exist, but it still does.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 20 July 2012 08:16:35PM 2 points [-]

A response to "It's technical jargon with a particular and useful meaning" would have been "Technical jargon shouldn't be used in arguing with the public." That is not, in fact, the statement which I was responding to.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 21 July 2012 01:52:32AM 1 point [-]

Where did you get that from? It's not in evidence from the point you're replying to.

Comment author: Eugene 27 July 2012 02:05:49AM 0 points [-]

This is probably the wrong place to talk about language, but I encourage you to look up how language actually works in the wild, both among small cultures and large populations. You may find that your phrase: "words mean what me and my friends want them to mean," is a surprisingly accurate description of language.

Comment author: David_Gerard 27 July 2012 10:37:56AM 0 points [-]

Yes, but that doesn't mean "and therefore not what your friends and this substantially well-documented academic usage want them to mean". I figured that bit was implied.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 20 July 2012 05:29:50PM 0 points [-]

Arguably useful, but it has such a tendency to derail that I suspect it's much more marginal than it really ought to be.

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 July 2012 08:04:00PM *  -1 points [-]

It's technical jargon that escaped.