Words

[plato85]

I would say that I have a large vocabulary, but perhaps not an up to date one.

I do regularly find that my definitions are out of date, or though deception I've taken completely the wrong definition.

A good example of this is, at the start of the year I thought I identified as alt-right because the media were describing my favourite political commentators as alt right. People like Milo Yiannopolous. I was going around defending the alt-right claiming that it was a complete fabrication that the alt right are Nazis or even racist.

I often find my arguments go in circles because I've got a different definition of a word. A few days ago I was defending conservatism and conservative values for ages. After half an hour of arguing I found out my definition of a conservative is anyone who feels that the past was better and that society is moving in the wrong direction, and are therefore opposed to much change. He told me his definition of conservatism was a white male patriarchy that opposes social change because they don't want to lose control of their world domination. Sure that second example is fairly extreme and hyperbolic (and unfortunately I didn't make this up).

On a serious note whether it's my error or someone else's, this kind of thing happens to me all the time. Any advice?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

It's a relative term. What is being conserved?

Same with liberal. Liberal means "freeing" or having to do with freedom. What leftist nonsense is actually freeing?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Before starting an argument, it's usually a good idea to first define the abstract terms being used. 

For example, "What is 'Far Right'?"

If I define "Far Left" as totalitarian dictatorship, then "Far Right" becomes Anarcho-Capitalism.

If I define "Far Left" based on the French Revolutionary definition of Socialists and Republicans on the left, then the Far Right is Monarchists and later Fascists. 

If I say "Far Left" is an abandonment of traditionalism in favor of new world values, then Far Right becomes staunch traditionalism to the point of being against any sort of change.

That's why I break it up into "Social" (i.e. social mores and principles) versus "Economic" left-right. A Social Far Leftist would be your typical pansexual Multikult degenerate while a Social Far Rightist would be anything ranging from old school Christian to Islam (which is very different but similar in that they're both traditionalist. If I base "Far Right" as "ultimate christendom", then Islam could be somewhere closer to the middle). Economic Left and Right being obvious: Leftists are totalitarian central planners while Rightists are individualist free market guys. 

Since arguing Left/Right can be a pain without understanding the definitions being used, I always define them first and ask what my partner in the debate thinks they mean, and try to establish a workable definition based on Left/Right being oppositional and based on what people identifying as Left/Right are. 

I'd recommend that for any abstract term like "conservative", "liberal", and even "fascist" as to some "fascists" a "fascist" is merely someone who wants a structurally stable and peaceful ethnostate rather than a big socialistic central planner with a slightly different rhetoric. 

 

[Jsbrads]

In the US (and Canada) Conservative ('C') means conforming to the founding values of the country, our constitution, law and order (while being somewhat open to tried and true established best practices like Free Trade even tho our founders did not know yet how valuable that was). "conservative" does not refer to anything specific and can be used to mean you like Mozart, Pink Floyd, or anything created before Drake.

In Europe it means something completely else.

Right and Left should mean the same thing everywhere. Oh, and Nazis are on the Left.  

[RichardY]

I tend to go with classical definitions or the Etymology of the word(Inflation; A change in prices. Classical Inflation; A change in the money supply). Except in the case of, "Gay", like in the Flintstones. Which strangely is a word people seem to acknowledge its change in significance.

"When you're with the Flintstones. Have a yabba-dabba-do time. A dabba-do time. We'll have a gay old time."

I kind of think the point is not to orientate yourself with the Flintstones, but to make sure your language is consistent as possible to the nature of yourself as a moral person in the world, teleological(becoming) if you're sane. Though Ontology(being) seems more appealing to me, in a bit of a knot myself.

[plato85]

21 hours ago, RichardY said:

I tend to go with classical definitions or the Etymology of the word.

I have the same instinct, but if everyone else is using newspeak, using classical definitions leads to confusion and anger.

 

I'm just thinking back to my original post:

On 14/08/2017 at 2:58 PM, plato85 said:

After half an hour of arguing I found out my definition of a conservative is anyone who feels that the past was better and that society is moving in the wrong direction, and are therefore opposed to much change. He told me his definition of conservatism was a white male patriarchy that opposes social change because they don't want to lose control of their world domination.

After I we defined these arguments, he continued arguing with his definition and I continued arguing with my own definition until he called me a Nazi and I ended the conversation.

I would have thought since I was the one defending conservatism and he was the one challenging it, he would shift his position somehow. I guess that's the ad hominem fallacy.

So there's no point in using someone else's definition, and standing up against deliberate fallacies is what's more important. I have to learn to identify when they're using this kind of argument early.

 

[RichardY]

@plato85 I think more than arguing is to have your value structure(priorities) in order, maybe they are, extrinsically and intrinsically, crystallise with journaling. A sharpness of purpose.

For bare bones there is Ethics and UPB. But integrity and virtue Ethics(aesthetics) takes precedent imho over UPB, I guess "Peaceful parenting" goes someway towards this. The whole Aristotelian mean and building of character. Picking battles and having discipline previously instilled. Apart from some sections of the military and religious orders, how can a person go about instilling discipline?

One of the points in UPB being how can you have a debate or discussion, if you don't value truth. (The whole not arguing against UPB without affirming it.) It would make any talk deceptions, assertions or commandments. Debating does suggest though, that people don't have a totality of truth(Hubris). Some people don't even acknowledge the self as an absolute, but the fact that people act as though they have a self, belief or not, UPB still accounts for this.

It would be interesting to have a look at Stefan's new book and see if it mentions anything about aesthetics(which is an Art right?).