Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- words [2024/02/16 00:48] – ultracomfy
+++ words [2025/04/09 20:29] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~Title:Words~~
 <WRAP column right 18%>
 {{page>Templates:Philosophy}}
 {{::cheeseburger_stabbing.jpg|}}
 ----
-Words are so inaccurate indeed, they even change meaning depending on context. From the perspective of the guy who wrote this, it was absolutely clear what the headline meant.((By "this" I mean the guy who wrote the headline. NOT the guy who wrote the options of things the headline can mean. It made sense from my perspective when I wrote it, but after proofreading it I immediately noticed that it actually is very unclear.))
+Words are //so// inaccurate, they even change meaning depending on context. From the perspective of the guy who wrote this, it was absolutely clear what the headline meant.((By "this" I mean the TV guy who wrote the headline. NOT the guy who made a meme out of it. It made sense from my perspective when I wrote it, but after proofreading it I immediately noticed that it actually is very unclear.))
 </WRAP>
@@ Line 25: / Line 26: @@
 I approach the world as a problem to solve. Hunger, suffering, war or even simple things like meeting a friend or sharing your innermost thoughts are all problems to be attacked and overcome. For functioning collaboration between humans, language is an essential part of day to day life. Words are the building blocks of such languages and their use is governed by grammar. Now, the problem of words is that words are but a thought in our brains. We are already limited to our highly restricted perception of reality through the use of our senses (which are subject to all kinds of biases), and then trying to establish uniquely identifying labels to attach to things that aren't even fundamental truths of the universe (but merely our personal interpretation of things) will cause a lot of headache in conversations where precision is needed.
-Many people, past me included, confuse the authority of words and think that is has real, substantive descriptive power on the real world. A [[woman]] is whatever we associate with the concept of a woman in our brains, but the word does not describe a [[fact of the universe]]. The reality is that "woman" will be a set of neurons in our brains that are closely connected to other neurons in our brain that store significant memories and experiences involving whatever we thought would fit into the same category. This category in our brain exists not because it exists in the physical plain, but because it serves as a useful discriminator in our brain. What exists in the physical plane are anatomical differences, but any way to categorize them authoritatively is an attempt to make prescriptions on a concept that doesn't accept prescriptions: Reality.
+Many people, past me included, confuse the authority of words and think that is has real, substantive descriptive power on the real world. A [[woman]] is whatever we associate with the concept of a woman in our brains, but the word does not describe a [[fact of the universe]]. The reality is that "woman" will be a set of neurons somewhere in our brains that are closely connected to other neurons in our brain that store significant memories and experiences involving whatever we thought would fit into the same category. This category in our brain exists not because it exists in the physical plane, but because it serves as a useful discriminator in our brain((Or simply because they are located very closely to each other, physically, in our brains.)). What exists in the physical plane are anatomical differences, but any way to categorize them authoritatively is an attempt to make prescriptions on a concept that doesn't accept prescriptions: Reality.
 This example shines light on a major flaw in our conceptualization of words, which is that they are //not// finite. Words are //not// an exact discriminator for physical realities. Dictionaries do //not// serve to distribute the exact, physical or atomical meaning of a reality, they merely try to compress what most people commonly associate with a word into a short description, all of which is subject to changes in how a word is used and then also filtered through our limited physical ability to perceive the real world((As in, what enters into our eyes is not the exact physical makeup of the real world, it's a distorted representation of it, which is then also badly (mis)interpreted by the human brain.)).
-So, if words are inaccurate and they don't mean what they mean((Ie. they do not describe a fact of a universe even though it tries to.)) and they are fundamentally flawed through our limited perception and everyone understands words differently, then what's the deal? Well, we still need them. Despite everything, we still need to be able to communicate meaning somehow and, until we find a way to transmit meaning between brains directly, we have to work with what we got: Encoding meaning into words that don't mean anything, using a language that is only a theoretical, transported via soundwaves or some other means that is susceptible to distortion, to then be decoded by another brain in the hope that what arrived at their brain is at least //similar// to what was originally meant to be said.
+So, if words are inaccurate and they don't mean what they mean((Ie. they do not describe a fact of a universe even though they evoke the appearance of trying to.)) and they are fundamentally flawed through our limited perception and everyone understands words differently, then what's the deal? Well, we still need them. Despite everything, we still need to be able to communicate meaning somehow and, until we find a way to transmit meaning between brains directly, we have to work with what we got: Encoding meaning into words that don't mean anything, using a language that is only a theoretical, transported via soundwaves or some other means that is susceptible to distortion, to then be decoded by another brain in the hope that what arrived at their brain is at least //similar// to what was originally meant to be said.
 ====== Me, this is Words. Words, this is me. ======
-With all of this out of the way, put yourself into the shoes of someone who is exclusively interested in solving problems. To me, language is a means to an end, something I need to learn and engage in because I need other people to get things done. The exchange of meaning and information between brains, even in relaxed settings, [[ramblings:accuracy|is a necessary evil I am inevitably forced into, not something I do because I find any kind of fulfilment in it]]. I am primarily interested in learning a language to a point that I can use it to effectively reach my goals - no more. So it should come at no surprise that I see little cultural value in languages (for example unnecessary complexity and redundancy in language that does nothing but make it harder to learn it) or the existence of several //different// languages in the first place, which serves solely to make those people inaccessible to me. Therefore, the value of a language is determined solely be the number of people I can reach with this((Yes, I support a global, uniform language - Chinese perhaps? Maybe English?)).
+With all of this out of the way, put yourself into the shoes of someone who is exclusively interested in solving problems. To me, language is a means to an end, something I need to learn and engage in because I need other people to get things done. The exchange of meaning and information between brains, even in relaxed settings, is a necessary evil I am inevitably forced into, //not// something I do because I find any kind of fulfilment in it((Well, except for the [[English Language]].)). I am primarily interested in learning a language to a point that I can use it to effectively reach my goals - no more. So it should come at no surprise that I see little cultural value in languages (for example unnecessary complexity and redundancy in language that does nothing but make it harder to learn it) or the existence of several //different// languages in the first place, which serves solely to make those people inaccessible to me. Therefore, the value of a language is determined solely be the number of people I can reach with this((Yes, I support a global, uniform language - Chinese perhaps? Maybe English?)).
 The bottom line is that I don't take language or words very seriously. As stated on my [[ramblings:accuracy|Accuracy]] page, I primarily care about the meaning //behind// the words, not words themselves. My lax approach to words means that I will //use// words "laxly", a cause of endless confusion and frustration between me and the people I talk to. What even //is// fascism, and why do I use the word without ever having looked it up? I don't really care! I will have picked that word up somewhere, have some very loose associations with it and then, based on my associations, eventually end up using that word because what I am trying to describe fits the vague associations I have drawn from wherever I picked that word up. I don't care! The result is that I have had to learn over the years that I do need to pay //some// attention to the words I use - not because the words require it, but because not paying attention to it just isn't worth the drama that inevitably ensues. I used to try to avoid spending more thought on //the words I am trying to use to describe a thought// than on //the thoughts themselves//, but I've had so much drama because of it, unfortunately, that I am now at a point where I spend minutes even just digging out the right words to describe the things I am trying to say. For style and personality I still have my very own... way of communicating, but I've been only getting more careful in how I express myself.
@@ Line 39: / Line 40: @@
 ====== Words and the people around me ======
-//See Uncyclopedia's page on [[https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Fisher_Price:_A_Retrospective|Fisher Price: A Retrospective]]//
+//See Uncyclopedia's page on [[https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Fisher_Price:_A_Retrospective|Fisher Price: A Retrospective]]//\\
+//See my own page about [[Ramblings:Accuracy]]//
 Right, unfortunately not everybody is as.. easy around words as I am. While I am mostly content with whatever brings across the intended meaning, some people will insist on pointing out formality flaws even after they have understood correctly what was originally meant to be said. Some people like to intentionally use weird and unnecessarily pendantic interpretations of words to avoid addressing the actual matter of an issue. They will shut down any and all reasoning operations to instead double and triple down on the meaning of words even though they know exactly what was meant; a situation that happens way too often where I then need to be //veeery// patient so that the conversation can resume. For example, the [[History#But isn't everything history?|But isn't everything history?]] section on the history page was born as a response to someone who argued that "everything is history", which, yknow, isn't wrong, but completely misses the point of what I am trying to say. I am still unhappy with the accuracy of my response.
+====== Common Words Issues ======
+===== Woman =====
+//See the full page on [[Woman]]//
+A lot of people try to apply the rules of words to the rules of reality in an attempt to deligimatize the womanhood of [[transgender]]-[[women]]. They are using language prescriptively, not descriptively, and language obviously wasn't made for that kind of use. So, trying to use dictionaries and definitions to attack rights and protections afforded to humans is already a questionable thing to do, but they are then also really stubborn about it, failing to understand that 1) "woman" isn't a real, definable trait that can be used to make fine real distinctions between people, and 2) that what should be done with people who are assigned the wrong gender on birth should depend on what's best for them and the rest of society, not the meaning of words. And when we look at what's best for society, it's very clear that gender falls into the space of personal freedom and that nobody is hurt by just leaving them be.
+===== Intentionally Misunderstanding Words =====
+<WRAP box>
+<WRAP centeralign group>
+<WRAP 5% rightalign column>
+<fs xx-large>//**"**//</fs>
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP 80% column>
+After reading 300 comments insisting that Hitler was a socialist simply because “Nazi” is short for “National Socialist,” I have to ask—do you know how words work? North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, yet it is neither democratic nor a republic. The “World Series” in American baseball does not mean the entire world participates. Words have meaning.
+The most fundamental divide between the left and the right is their stance on equality. The right believes that some level of inequality is not only inevitable but beneficial to society. The left—socialists included—argue the opposite. You can believe whichever you like; I don’t care. But let’s at least be honest about definitions.
+Socialism, as opposed to capitalism, is based on the belief that society functions best when economic equality is increased and the working class has greater influence. Hitler did the exact opposite—he banned unions, imprisoned socialists in concentration camps, and built an ideology entirely on the belief that human beings are not equal.
+Yes, Hitler implemented state intervention in the economy—but not to promote equality. He did so to prepare for war against those he deemed inferior. Calling that socialism is like calling North Korea a democracy((Yesyes, shoutout to the tankies who think DPRK is a superb and excellent democracy and are going to disagree with this piece of "western propaganda".))—wrong, misleading, and intellectually lazy.
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP 5% leftalign column>
+<fs xx-large>//**"**//</fs>
+</WRAP>
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP centeralign>~xmartinx357, in a comment: [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLWLb0RM7HQ&lc=Ugyijn5Tbum2yw6cB_R4AaABAg|Germany’s Far-Right Comeback | NYT Opinion]]</WRAP>
+</WRAP>
+People like to intentionally misinterpret words to engage in whitewashing. By painting Hitler as a "socialist" you can disconnect him from the negative association of what is commonly understood as right wing: Authoritarian and oppressive.