Another Destiny vs Mr. Girl, very heated and confusion.

[Kksd74628]

@zurew

This conversation is starting to be comical. Yeah I didn't mean that it is a rule that when you share definitions you automatically agree, but I'd say that person who calls far lefties as communists isn't voting lefties in the first place. An isolated case doesn't make the whole statement wrong. I don't know what type of definition differences you're talking about if those aren't political definition differences. What I've seen is that people ideologize definitions so they play to their favour in debate and that's the things I don't like.

[Danioover9000]

@Kksd74628

42 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@zurew

One fun "coincidence" is that the people who agree with you most of the times usually share the definitions and people who disagree with you disagree on definitions. I think that alone should show that it's not about defining word way that works in your brain the best, but a way that works with your own ideology. You can define things any way, but the second you start including your own ideology in it, it starts to collapse. For example calling all far lefties as communists would be making them look laughable under that definition alone.

@Danioover9000

That proves my point that it was always about your own agenda not the way your brain works. The thing I tried to prove whole time proved itself . Amen ??.

   Well, it depends on your stage of development, cognitive and moral development, personality, state of being, life experiences and other lines of development and worldview.

   When we have definitions and words, at first language doesn't really mean anything in isolation, and as a baby your brain hasn't developed enough to create and maintain mental categories through language, about others objects and acts. During your family upbringing and early education, you and most people absorb language used by other humans that are mostly spoken and listened to, then your further develop through literacy education, which is where you discover the uses of dictionaries and definitions of other words. Further education and reading, and learning outside of schools, and then you realize just how many definitions exist that are collectively defined and enforced, versus how many you hold personally, and you then have to make compromises as you go through life.

   I was just pointing out that there are personal and collective definitions to a word, how is that my agenda?

Edited September 7, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Kksd74628]

@Danioover9000

You just proved another thing in your response. You said that people learn definitions from people around them. So basically if we'd be more connected to other human beings which should be one goal of politics we'd share more definitions with other people. So the reason why some groups have different definitions to other groups is that they have their ideology in it. I think we should leave words neutral and build our opinions and worldviews around those and not the another way around. Definition is perspective is a way of seeing things and if you push your definition to people that means you push your agenda.

This goes like a chess. We should agree on how pieces move, but after that you're free to do whatever you want with your correct moves.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

I have to say that I'm not that great in that field, but anyways. Communist is a person who supports communism which is an ideology where all resources are shared and we don't need goverment and money anymore. The problem comes if we start to name all far lefties with a name communist, because that would be incorrect usage of a word.

Thank you for defining the word and demonstrating why we define words in conversation. There is no way around it.

[zurew]

@Kksd74628 You havent established at all, how having the same ideology or the same ideas is directly connected to having the same set of definitions you just assumed it, and now try to use it to explain everything with it.

 

Do we disagree right now, because we are using different definitions?

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by zurew

[Kksd74628]

@Carl-Richard

You misunderstood what I was talking about. I just said that we shouldn't have own definition which differ too much from the normal usage of a word. Being able to explain word on the fly is useful skill though, but that's not the same as having definition full of ideology. How's it so hard to understand my point that I have tried to show in like 10 or more messages? Go through most of them and try to understand what I was showing. 

@zurew

Because the definitions are perspectives and usually people with same worldviews come up with same type of perspectives.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

How's it so hard to understand my point that I have tried to show in like 10 or more messages?

Must be , because of the different agendas and different defintions .

[Kksd74628]

@zurew

I know you tried to be funny, but if someone's own definitions reduces capability to read simple english then I'd say someone has gone too far.

[zurew]

Yeah, totally. If two people or three people disagree with you, the only and most plausible explanation has to be, that those people must have misinterpreted something.

[Scholar]

Interesting thing we have kind of completely forgotten about:

Nazis don't exist anymore by the definitions we used to use, even like 10 years ago. People who adhere to nazi ideology are not nazis, they are neo-nazis. We specifically had that term to describe these people, and I remember vividly in my youth we used that term, and the term nazi had an exclusively historical connotation.

 

So, it's actually pretty easy to avoid the "nazi" term altogether, by just referring to actual neo-nazis as... well, neo-nazis, because that's what they are, and that's the term we specifically have assigned to them.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Scholar

[Kksd74628]

@Scholar

Boom, the first who understood the point.

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

You misunderstood what I was talking about. I just said that we shouldn't have own definition which differ too much from the normal usage of a word. Being able to explain word on the fly is useful skill though, but that's not the same as having definition full of ideology. How's it so hard to understand my point that I have tried to show in like 10 or more messages? Go through most of them and try to understand what I was showing. 

The real source of my misunderstanding is that I don't understand why you would bring up that in this discussion. We were talking about defining words in a reasonable way (adding nuance and making it more specific), not in the leftist Twitter brain dead way (generalizing it into obscurity).

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Interesting thing we have kind of completely forgotten about:

Nazis don't exist anymore by the definitions we used to use, even like 10 years ago. People who adhere to nazi ideology are not nazis, they are neo-nazis. We specifically had that term to describe these people, and I remember vividly in my youth we used that term, and the term nazi had an exclusively historical connotation.

 

So, it's actually pretty easy to avoid the "nazi" term altogether, by just referring to actual neo-nazis as... well, neo-nazis, because that's what they are, and that's the term we specifically have assigned to them.

More proof that defining words in conversation is useful.

[Kksd74628]

@Carl-Richard

Okay, then I agree with everything that everyone said here, because yeah making definitions more specific and nuanced is good thing. What I was agruing against was ideologizing words with your worldviews and actually that was the topic of the original Destiny versus MrGirl video as well so I thought we were talking about this instead, but yeah. 

47 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

This goes like a chess. We should agree on how pieces move, but after that you're free to do whatever you want with your correct moves.

This is also good thing to understand. Of course if we are talking about just making definitions more specific then everyone who understands what we are talking about should agree with the definitions. So I was right in my statement that if someone disagrees with your definition that you tried to make as specific as possible then (s)he's wrong.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Kksd74628 said:

What I was agruing against was ideologizing words with your worldviews and actually that was the topic of the original Destiny versus MrGirl video as well so I thought we were talking about this instead, but yeah. 

In the video, Mr. Girl was confronting Destiny about his decision to strategically avoid labeling Fuentes with a reasonable definition of nazi, not a brain dead one. That is what we're discussing here.

[Kksd74628]

@Carl-Richard

Good principle is that whenever one needs to ask yes/no question something is already wrong in the conversation. It's forcing someone to give opinion without giving possibility to defend or explain it. Destiny was right on his take that definitions by themself aren't the most important thing and are just tools to play with. The most important thing is to see other one's worldview and talk about it instead. Destiny said many times that the person they were talking about isn't nazi by dictionary definition. I think that's enough and we don't need any other definitions to this conversation.

[Carl-Richard]

41 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Good principle is that whenever one needs to ask yes/no question something is already wrong in the conversation. It's forcing someone to give opinion without giving possibility to defend or explain it.

Not if you let them respond afterwards. 

 

41 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Destiny was right on his take that definitions by themself aren't the most important thing and are just tools to play with. The most important thing is to see other one's worldview and talk about it instead.

That is just a guess he is making. He doesn't actually know that. For all he knows, he might be radicalizing more people than he is de-radicalizing, which means that his strategy is failing. Mr. Girl just wants him to be more careful and warns that this might be happening.

 

41 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

Destiny said many times that the person they were talking about isn't nazi by dictionary definition. I think that's enough and we don't need any other definitions to this conversation.

The dictionary definition says it's "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party". However, when you call a young American who is alive today a nazi, the implication is that they hold the same beliefs as those people (because they're not 90 years old or a German national).

It's like the word "democrat" in the US. If somebody is not a politician and calls themselves a democrat, the implication is that they at least hold some of the same beliefs as the Democratic Party. And exactly what those beliefs are needs to be specified, and again, you do that by defining it in conversation.

Could Fuentes fit the criteria necessary for such a definition of nazi? By Destiny's own hyper-restrictive definition, he admits "just barely not", and in my opinion, the reason for that is way too trivial (which Vegan Gains said the best: "only a chance he might be genocidal towards Jews?... ").

Edited September 7, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Kksd74628]

@Carl-Richard

You could call him neo-nazi, but calling him nazi would be a mistake. And yeah asking yes/no question would be okay if you let the other one respond, but usually people won't and that's why i'd careful in those situations.

[Carl-Richard]

40 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Carl-Richard

You could call him neo-nazi, but calling him nazi would be a mistake.

Even if we go by the naive feeling that everybody has in their mind about a word, I bet that if you were to explain to any person on the street what Nick believes, the first thing that pops up in their mind will be "ah, nazi", not "neo-nazi" or "anti-Semitic fascist". You never rely 100% on a dictionary definition. It's always a mix between that naive feeling, things you've learned, and dictionary definitions.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Kksd74628]

@Carl-Richard

We are circling around the subject, but even if majority people answer in the streets that 1+1 equals 3 it doesn't change the fact that it is 2.