so if the argument comes, the definition of the word is something we must fight on

ignoring it is not helping

Ignoring it is rarely tried

the opposite is true from my estimations

in parliament it is commonly ignored

spending valuable debate time arguing meaning is time wasted - people broadly understand meaning or can be made to by thoughtful speechcraft

I do not believe so

it looks like we differ on how we see this

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1226829398642483200

i've not an idea on how we can find common ground on this, should we rest the argument for another time?

well firstly, here is what I'd suggest. strike directly to the issue, present an unlosable argument, then and only then allow the other side to claw backwards to definitions. You either reach a point where they disagree with common sense or you reach a point where their definition is unworkable.

the semantics portion of any debate loses the non-philosophical viewer

I think I would fall back to AA's argument here on the motte and bailey

and that's who you're trying to convince, not the other person

exactly

I think what you described is the method by which I'd suggest I am asking for action on

I'm not looking for the strategy or method right now, just the idea that we should be protecting the language from bastardisation

which I do agree with (sorry if I didn't make that clear) - just that I think it's mostly impossible while the marxists are in the schools

So my position here is that we resit the redefinitions in every place we can

not so much that we should copy their tearing at the defintions

mainly that we should put up a wall and start defending

I think that loses the viewers though

rather than just allowing them to slip their bullshit into our lives

So again, if I'm talking purely on the idea of what to do, and not how to do it

if we don't argue our definitions but rather simply state them as fact, then we skip that step.

how to do it could be done anyway

I would accept stating the fact as the argument in itself

I think I'm using the word argument in a different way to you are

which is a semantic argument in itself XD

exactly 😛

I'm using argument in the way in which anything that from a statement to what we're doing now is an argument

the attempt to convey something

yeah, understood. I'm thinking of hour longe debates where the participants simply dance around issues without ever discussing the facts of the issue, because they spent so long defining terms and saying 'oh that's not how I understand that word'

oh yes, i'm not asking for this

this would be the method, by which i'm not interested in right now

looks like we've found our common ground

if people can start coming in saying "here's my preferred dictionary as reference, let's begin" then any deviation is a derailment dodging the question - you win. and fair enough to not have much interest in the tactics but that's just my strategic outlook on life thinking for me before I state my position

I'm thinking, JBP method of opposing the bastardisation

as the main reference point for this idea, however, i am again in favor of anything atm

peterson goes alright when presented with hostility, but I actually think he flops when the host is civil. it's attack and defense, and I think he doesn't switch quickly enough

but yea I'm going to leave it there