.@bathwin That's what I'm objecting to. Find out what the other person means by a word. Don't spend hours telling them what they should mean
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Give them racism and talk about racial prejudice instead? They want the ism coz it comes with an ist, much worse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bathwin
I accept the definition of the person I'm talking to. I'm objecting to them not doing so & shutting down convo with semantics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I see what you mean but also shuts off debate when you both accept each others different definitions of what you're discussing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bathwin
For the purpose of the conversation! eg 'You're calling 'racism' what I'd call 'institutional racism' Lets discuss it now.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
OK so you call it an apple, I call it an orange, now let's have a useful discussion...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bathwin
Yes! We don't have to agree on the correct word for something to discuss something. We just have to both know what other means.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
The underlying reality matters. So let's talk about racism from POC. POC can't be racist! OK, institutional racism it is then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bathwin
Yes, it does. That's what we need to be discussing. Not always whether we're using the right words to discuss it.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Once you accept these different terms you are in some way accepting this alternate reality, and altering the debate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You don't have to accept them generally or commit to not arguing against them to put aside semantics & discuss what they refer to.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.