take back what things mean

rather the opposite - refuse to argue the meaning of words. Present the literal meaning or the commonly understood meaning, and never re-define regardless of what the opposition argues is the meaning. Simply ignore the semantic portion of debate and rightly accuse them of derailing the conversation when they go back to the meaning argument. People understand language without the preamble.

no no, i'd argue that is arguing the meaning

so if someone presents you a word, give them a definition of it

that's defining

and if they give you a different one, tell them that's not what that means

you simply can't get rid of defining. I'm saying that if they define it differently, that's irrelevant. They're arguing with you, they can use your definition or be accused of delrailing debate

without a definition they're able to basterdise it in the school

and in the education system

this is what i'm saying

look at the word racist

but how do we win that conversation?

we threw it around a lot, and now they're redefining it in education

I understand what you're saying, you don't need to explain

oh sorry

i don't mean to be condescending if it came across like that

I'm just asking how can it help to continue down their deconstructivist path, questioning every stone before you step on it

i'm not asking for us to define everything over again

i'm saying when it's presented we must act to kill it

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