gem from my FB feed
Conversation
Replying to
they are named in a deceptive way on purpose
in-group supports obvious intuitively correct philosophical stance
out-group is full of crazy weirdos who hate common sense goods
chastising people for being fooled by ideologues who built obfuscating terminology to fool them
2
17
Replying to
True I suppose, however a stance on something almost always reflects on ones other beliefs in life.
Replying to
The quotation continues to not be the referent. I'm thinking this is a muscle that most people don't know how to flex, to separate the content from the label.
1
Replying to
Hmm. The literal meaning of « Pro-life » is actually opposition to abortion because one believes a fetus is a life and therefore must be preserved. No one opposing abortion for any other reason (harm to mother, desire to increase human population) would use that label.
2
3
Replying to
Pretending we don't know what people mean is a jolly pastime.
Though in my darkest moments I fear most are not pretending
1
Replying to
"Labels are not definitions" is the phrase I am familiar with for expressing this (seems to come from here originally: itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagel )
Replying to
Would very much disagree with this. Just because terms don't sometimes marry with the exact definition of the two words meaning smashed together, does not mean you cannot use them in different ways.
E.g if you're so pro - life, why do you demonise immigrants is a legit response
1
2
Replying to
"Pro-life" is a bad example here. The pro-life movement also opposes euthanasia, claims frequently that opposition comes from a generalized "culture of death".
2