Tell me why you disagree with it.
I asked you if that's what you believe:
Message 20316575
I didn't voice disagreement; I'd asked a question, which went unanswered.
Society uses language to categorize things.
I'd say that, fundamentally, people use language to define and explain things. 'Society,' 'groups,' 'categoriz[ation],' etc., come along subsequently. Secondarily, even.
Theft is only theft because people decided it was theft and call it that- and define it in a certain way.
If only that were the case, though.
Instead, you've delineated the problem, as I see it; as those "certain ways" of defining things are increasingly taught as malleable (and expressed similarly), the implications can be sweeping. In particular, when there are groups who - by influencing, even controlling, the direction of that incremental redefinition - stand to reap gains from doing so.
It seems so obvious to me[.]
I don't doubt that for a moment.
[W]ith what, exactly, do you disagree.
I'm specifically opposed to moral relativism, a major tool of which is coercive semanticism. That includes, but (certainly) isn't limited to, both the efforts and realized effects of "political correctness."
LPS5 |
