And I told you you're equivocating two different things. But sure, just ignore your opponents response to that and state the exact same question over again in hopes that no one will notice. Conversely, I'm going to state exactly what I just said and tell you to go back and read or respond to my point about immigration enforcement vs the ethno-nationalism that Spencer adheres to, specifically, which more so involves aspects of racial eugenics.
''verbal abuse". That sounds pretty snowflake-y to me.No. Stop being verbally abusive towards me.
Words should be fuzzy in their meaning? Even when that's the case due to malicious confusion and manipulation? The problem is that we're not even talking about a word that's hard to understand because its meaning is too complex, it's hard to understand because most people using the word are painfully dumb.Londoner wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:49 amI would say that when it comes to words the only way we can define their meaning is the way they are used. If that is fuzzy, or inconsistent, then there is no point in wishing otherwise. (And people who are interested in philosophy do tend to wish otherwise!)
What these journalists are trying to do is basically the definition of 'equivocation', and it's not so much about the grammatical error as it is an issue in journalistic integrity. I agree that no one has a monopoly on what a word means, but imagine if I suddenly redefined 'Neo-nazi' to mean and only mean 'Londoner', as though, the definition of the word now means specifically you whenever I use it - even though what I've done isn't necessarily incorrect, because my assigned meaning to the word matches the description I've given it - I think you'd have a thing or two to say about it, and you absolutely should. I'd obviously be trying to make a false impression about you.
But sometimes, the person these journalists describe as 'at-right', don't even match their own admitted description of what 'alt-right' means, and that's a whole other layer.