I'm often asked why rigid commitment to political language matters. If in saying “socialism” ppl mean “liberalism with high taxation” why not accept the new definition? But turn that question around. Why, given its deadly history, is the socialist not disenamored of the word?
-
Show this thread
-
Imagine a fascist attempt to define "real Nazism" as some middle way between freedom and literal Nazism. We would never accept such a redefinition of our language because the propagandist's motivation would be clear — Nazism.
3 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
Language is the air we breathe. When corrupted, there is no logical argument for freedom that can save us.https://medium.com/@micsolana/conquering-cerberus-a6d760c7ad9a …
1 reply 3 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @micsolana
But surely you see that this fight is much larger than language - it's about ideas that existed long before the English definitions were created and they will exist in the future in whatever lingua franca we evolve to. All your arguments still hold w/o rigid commitment to words
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
i agree language is not enough. in the piece i also make the logical and moral cases. cerberus has three heads :)
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.