How do we fight words not meaning anything in `the discourse'?
The poverty of language is a key part of fascism.
maybe watch Hypernormalization?
I feel like this has been debunked, regardless of what Umberto Eco and Orwell have to say about it.
There's no way to go back to how it was before all the things were simultaneously competing for your attention. But it does mean you're free to try and exceed their hyperbole with your own.
Learn how to speak and write without the meaningless words? If the word you want to use has a controversial meaning, it seems like any argument involving that word will become the focus rather than the larger topic.
For example, I feel like 'socialism' has been pretty much evacuated of all it's meaning in the public sphere. I don't need to say socialism to make someone understand the labor theory of value. I also don't have to say labor theory of value to get them to understand that without the worker, there is no value. I can work back from there a lot easier than I could if I started with trying to define socialism imo.
Blurring definitions is definitely something that the powers that be do. I just feel like it can be combated with better description rather than the singular words.
This is a good tactic and I'll definitely work on incorporating it. Where I usually run into trouble is when chud or chud-adjacent folks bring up anything about fascism (or antifascism). I usually try to use leading questions to get people to process meaning instead of buzzwords but it's hard for people to navigate unfamiliar concepts when their map and compass (vocabulary and meaning) are backwards or non-existent.
You can't really. If they start deconstructing words they're arguing in bad faith. Even if you can point out that it's a malicious attempt to derail the argument the argument has already been derailed and they'll just bring out the next thing even if you can keep focus.
You can sarcastically change the phrasing to something so specific it's absurd, hopefully shaming them and deflating their effort. Then if they argue back you can claim the absurdity was a ploy, a joke and they're stupid. At best you walk away with the upper hand but having failed to make a compelling argument.
i usually just resort to trolling when they derail. might as well one up them and make them look like a buffoon
Impossibly long and difficult answer: get everyone to read and understand Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski
Impossibly short and difficult answer: get everyone to renounce technology, live in shacks, and [redacted] like Ted Kaczynski
But for real, I think the best play is to try to shift the level of abstraction of the argument either closer to immediate material experience or more generalized as needed to get to a point where your dictionaries match. Of course, this results in a lot of 'Patrick's Wallet' scenarios but I figure that means the person wasn't arguing in good faith to begin with and just move on or troll
Thanks. I definitely need to get better at recognizing when I should just transition to pig poop balls
