Hacker News Reader

Comment by frenchy | Hacker News Reader

If 99.9% of people missunderstand what a word means, then maybe it doesn't really mean what you think it does, or has no clear meaning at all.

Webster didn't get his dictionary from a discrete meeting with some cave spirit.

View on HN

Good point. Words are means of communication.

Though there is a problem of ambiguity if word is reused (adjusted) for different meaning, while books (and people) from 1940 still continue using the old meaning.

(just pointing out that meaning of words of dead people also matter)

Then what’s the new definition? Anyone with right wing opinions I don’t like? And I can redefine communist as anyone with left wing opinions that I dislike?

Do you see why this is a dangerous path to go down?

New words appear constantly or old words are re-appropriated to fill the semantic necessities as they appear

Seeing it as a dangerous path implies some voluntarily action and that is not exactly the mechanism at hand.

I think it’s a dangerous path because it leads to dehumanizing the other. As I said, the exact same thing happens when people on the right call anyone left wing a communist. Exactly same phenomenon, just as dangerous.

What I'm saying is that it's going to happen regardless of the consequences, because of how languages evolve. Coming from a culture that likes to regulate language, I find that any effort in that vein tends to fail pretty spectacularly. At best, you can mandate spelling reforms.

If dehumanization occurs, and people then counter that phenomenon, new words and new meanings will appear naturally just like they always have. Old words will stop being employed. There will still be confusion for a while but it's never really a significant problem. Semantic differences are a symptom of fundamental disagreements rather than a cause.

Look at the word "alt-right" for instance: it filled a need, appeared quickly, was initially criticized as a euphemism but rapidly took on more specific and non-euphemistic meaning. For the younger generations, calling anyone left-wing a communist in the way you describe is already hilariously passé and associated with boomers.

People can choose what words they decide to use. They simply have to be educated enough to know the difference and concerned enough to care.

But that's the point. They don't have to do anything. They will use words in certain ways, and the meaning will change. And if enough people support that meaning, they will be eventually be correct.

Consider how the meaning of epicurean has evolved due to Christian influence over time. Now matter how much education people get on the topic of the original philosophy, it will not be sufficient to erase the alternative meaning of the word.

Well, people like to throw around the term Nazi much in the way. I think in general society does a pretty good job of containing the spread of that word so that _for the most part_, when somebody says Nazi, you can assume they are referring to a party that existed in Germany ~1935, or something very close (self-declared decsendents of Nazis etc) .. Further, I think you will often be checked if you try and mislabel something as Nazi, and rightly so..

It's certainly not the same as with Fascism and I would probably agree with the OP in this thread that the main is reason is that while people have seen plenty of movies about Hitler et al, the same can't be said for Mussolini. The Italian origins of the word seemed to have been lost largely due to historical ignorance..

Essentially, you have the answer already. Since actual Nazis are still very much a highly relevant cultural reference, there is not yet enough inertia for Nazi to become a generic term. Conversely, since few care about Italian fascism, the need is not felt.

The difference here is that this is not something that an intervention can fix, unless it could somehow compete with decades of cultural interactions and signifiers from billions of people. It's not a case of containing anything: that's essentially an anthropomorphization similar to seeing evolution as having intent. That is why the idea of wanting to educate people in the hopes of enforcing "correct" wording is fundamentally flawed because it has almost nothing to do with how words actually change or stay the same.

Well.. I think if there was a blockbuster movie that came out with Brad Pitt starring as Il Duce and it clearly articulated the origins, I think it would have a significant effect.

The prescriptive/descriptive discussion doesn't mean much to me (although DFW has a great essay on it if you are so inclined). I just wanted to throw my 2c in with the guy being downvoted, because I think he's right. I think the extent of Average Joe's historical knowledge is basically whatever Hollywood has made movies about. AverageJoe thinks that the Nazis are Nazis, and Fascism is a more generic term which contains the Nazis and other 'far right' groups.. and who knows, maybe _it is that_ now, but lets be honest how we got here - that nearly everybody, even the most vocal 'anti-facists' are historical ignoramuses. They think that by merely existing they have the necessary information to assert their opinions on historical/political movements. It's a joke

I suspect you may have meant "discreet" rather than "discrete" (although I suppose the latter could make sense). I mix them up quite often myself.

Considering that the label of fascism is usually being used with reference the the Nazis (ironically almost never to the actual Italian fascists themselves - a symptom of the historical ignorance I mentioned), I’m gonna say yes, the word has a specific meaning.

You say "actual Italian fascists" as if the Nazi party wasn't "actually fascist".

I would say it's pretty clear that you're the one with the poor understanding of fascism.

I said actual Italian fascists because... that’s where the word came from. They invented it. The Nazis copied many ideas from Mussolini, who was in power for a decade or so before the Nazis.

Apparently historical facts are downvoted now?

I don't down vote on here but if I were to guess, it's not for stating facts, but for asserting your rigid interpretation of those facts as if it were the only obvious conclusion.

I'd suggest reading the article before going 2012 era TCOT

Reply on news.ycombinator.com