|
|
The 1585
Hall of Frequently Misused Terms
Sometimes,
rhetoricians (people who construct arguments)
representing one ideology or another will deliberately misuse certain
terms because it is to their advantage for people to begin defining
those terms the wrong way. As a result of this, other people,
through
no fault of their own, will begin employing those terms incorrectly.
The following is a list of terms that many people
accidentally or
deliberately misuse in contemporary political discourse.
NOTE:
This is
not a tirade about grammar;
grammar is a separate
issue. This is calling
bullshit
on
people who are cheating
when they argue, because The 1585 opposes cheating. This is
also
not
intended to deliberately help one side or the other — as you
will see,
this section calls bullshit on both Liberals and Conservatives.
1585s
believe that if you have to cheat to win, then you don’t
deserve to
win — the side that wins when everyone is arguing accurately
is
the side
that is right. 1585s pledge to use all terms correctly when
they argue,
to the best of their ability.
Argument:
Most people use
“arguing” as a synonym for
“fighting” (in the verbal sense), but this is not
exactly accurate.
Technically, an argument
occurs anytime
someone
states what
they believe and gives reasons why they believe it — the term
has nothing
whatsoever to do with being angry or raising your voice. So,
if your
best friend is explaining to you why you should see a certain movie,
then your friend is making an argument,
whereas two
people screaming at each other are not
necessarily
making arguments.
Bias:
It has become
commonplace in
contemporary political discussion for people to accuse their opponents
of bias — Conservatives
say the things
they don’t like have a liberal
bias, and
Liberals say the things they don’t like have a conservative
bias.
So what does this term really mean? It
can’t possibly mean
what people
are using it to mean in the above example — that would mean
that having an opinion at all
would constitute
“bias,” which you probably already know
isn’t the case. Defined accurately, bias
is when someone has an opinion that is based
on something
either false or irrelevant to the issue.
For example, if someone says that a particular politician is
the best
candidate for a particular position, but is only saying so because that
candidate is their cousin, then this person’s opinion is
biased. On the
other hand, if someone argues that this same candidate is the best
person for the job because they have studied the issues and come to a
conclusion that is based on evidence, then this person’s
opinion is not
biased. This doesn’t
necessarily mean that they are right,
because
remember I said “to
the best of their ability,”
and the person might still be dumb.
It just means
that they are not biased.
So, it is very possible for two people to be arguing the
exact same
position, and for one of them to be biased and the other not biased,
depending on their motivations
for arguing that
position.
It is also common for
institutions — a media outlet such as a
newspaper, for example — to be accused of bias because they
might agree
with one candidate more than the other. But this too is an
inaccurate
definition of bias. If one candidate is right more of the
time, then
why should people feel like they have to pretend that each candidate is
right exactly 50% of the time? That would only serve to help
the
candidate who is wrong more often, and what is the point of that?
To
further illustrate this point, imagine if it were a rule in football
that the ref had to call an equal number of penalties against both
teams — that would be crazy, right? It would only
help the
team who
commits more penalties. A referee’s job
isn’t to
call penalties equally;
it is to call penalties accurately. If
one team commits way more than the other, then that is
that team’s
fault, not the ref’s. Media outlets are supposed to
be like
the
referees of politics — it would be stupid to expect them to
always
present both sides of an issue as if both positions are equally valid;
if one position is clearly stupid, then there is nothing wrong with
saying so. (NOTE: Unfortunately, media outlets can
not always be
trusted to do this. You see, unlike a football referee, who
gets paid
the same no matter which team wins, newspapers and TV stations make
more or less money depending on how many people buy their paper or
watch their station, so there will always be pressure on them to seem
to agree with the position that is more popular, because they will make
more money that way. This should always be taken into
consideration.)
Dogma:
Most dictionaries
define dogma
only as “a set
of rules or principles authoritatively laid down,” or
something along
those lines. While this definition is not exactly false,
it is rather incomplete.
The problem with
it is
that even self-evidently true
things can be
“rules or principles authoritatively laid
down” — the rule
that two plus
two is four, for
example, or the principle
that force equals mass
times acceleration; and yet one would be foolish to refer to these
principles as dogma,
because they can be proven.
The term should be used to refer only to rules or principles
that there
is insufficient evidence
to support — but
be advised that what does or does not qualify as sufficient
evidence is another matter
entirely.
Free
Speech:
This is a term
people
use a lot, especially when
discussing politics, and it is a very powerful term indeed.
No-one
wants to sound like they are “against” Free
Speech — we learn very
early in life that being “against Free Speech” is
the most un-American
thing there is. So, since we all agree that the term is so
important,
we should also try and make sure that we are using it correctly.
At
some point, you have probably heard someone defend themselves against
someone else who is mad about something they said by mentioning that
they have a right to Freedom of Speech; you may even hear people saying
things like this all the time — and so it may surprise you to
learn
that this argument is actually completely meaningless.
Technically, all
Freedom of Speech means is that the government
can’t make it against
the law
for you to say something. This is an extremely
important
right that we should all be very proud of, but let’s also
remember what
it does not
mean — for instance, it does not
mean that
other people can’t disagree with you, or tell you
you’re wrong, or tell
you that something you said made them angry.
Those things are
not an
infringement upon your right to Free Speech, for a few reasons.
First
of all, the other person is not the government.
Secondly, the other person is not saying that what you said
should be illegal
to say, nor are they preventing
you from saying it;
they are just telling you that they disagree.
Remember when the guy who made Super
Size Me
made jokes about retarded people during a speech, and then when people
got mad, he talked about Freedom of Speech? Well, his
response missed
the point. People weren’t saying that he should go
to jail for
making jokes about retarded people; they were just saying that it was
mean and obnoxious, and that they disagreed with his decision to say
those things. So, although they weren’t
infringing upon his
Freedom of Speech, he
was, ironically, disparaging theirs
by
implying that they had no right to criticize him.
Logic
(and/or Reason):
It
surprises me that so many people
are confused about these terms, but they are, so I included them here.
Now, most people do seem basically to realize that logic
just means extremely
careful thought, where the thinker is making absolutely sure not to
leave anything out, or jump to any conclusions, or assume anything that
has not been settled, and this
is indeed basically what it
means (reason
means the same thing, but can also refer to the ability of humans to
think that way, or it can act as a verb). The problems start
when
people begin incorrectly associating the idea of being
“logical” with
other things that don’t actually have anything to do with it.
For
example, a lot of people think that logic
means not
using emotion, or even think
that logic is the opposite
of “emotion,” and neither of these things is true.
For example, let’s
say that someone uses the Golden Rule (“do unto others as you
would be
done by”) to reason that murder is wrong — you are
figuring out that
you should not kill based on the fact that you yourself do not want to
be killed, and not wanting to
be killed is an emotion,
so if you were actually not
using emotion, you
couldn’t figure this out. Lots of people also seem
to think
that logic means being calm,
or not
getting excited — this
is probably a combination of
the “emotion” error and the fact that we
incorrectly use the expression “be
reasonable”
when what we mean to say is “calm
down”
(there are, of course, lots of perfectly logical
reasons to get excited).
Many religious people seem to make this
mistake — especially
Christians, possibly because many of their theologians advocate
stoicism; but this is an inaccurate interpretation of their own
theology — the passage beginning at John 2:14 where Jesus
unloads on
the money-changers means that some things are supposed
to make you angry, and indeed that it would be wrong not
to get angry about them. Of course, the preceding argument is
a waste
of time, since if religious people were actually so into being logical,
they would not be religious
to begin with.
It is
inherently an enormous contradiction to identify yourself as religious
and also claim that you are logical,
or chastise
others for not being logical.
Of course, when religious Conservatives do this, it is
because they are
in thrall to the overall conservative agenda, which requires the
despising of people who attempt to change things for the better, and
who occasionally “get excited” in their efforts to
do so.
Because of the common errors just
discussed, the stereotype in
contemporary politics is that Conservatives are logical
whereas Liberals are emotional,
but this idea is
utterly false, and not only because of the fact that so many
conservative positions are based on religion.
Conservatives identify themselves as logical
because they believe that their positions represent order,
whereas the liberal positions represent chaos,
and
this is a problem for a few reasons. First of all, many
conservative
ideas of order
are based on the idea that all people should behave in the same ways,
and while this indeed might lead to a society where Conservatives are
less uncomfortable, logic has nothing to do with whether people are comfortable
or uncomfortable —
it
simply means not making
mistakes. Secondly,
while it is indeed true that
logic is an orderly
way of thinking,
it is not necessarily the case that the solutions produced by the use
of logic will make human society more orderly; to believe this would be
to confuse two very different concepts (which would not be very logical).
Conservative readers will, however, be
happy to hear that The 1585
considers liberal
rhetoric about the concept of
logic to be even more
inaccurate and annoying.
You see, the problem that many contemporary American Liberals
have is
that they aren’t 100% sure what they actually believe, and so
they
simply wait for a Conservative to say something and then say the
opposite (and since Conservatives are wrong so much of the time, many
Liberals never realize that this is a problem). So, when
Conservatives
make the mistake of claiming that they are being logical
when they are actually not, many Liberals respond by making the mistake
of saying that logic is a bad
thing (rather than
doing what they should
do, which is think
about it for a minute and then say “Hey, hold on,
you’re not being
logical at all, because…”). In
accordance with
this, many liberal
theorists have written whole books about why logic is bad, or even
argued that it is inherently sexist,
or racist,
even though sexism and racism can both be
disproved through
the use of logic — just
because logic
is a word Conservatives like to use, even
though they are not
using it correctly! I
have seen entire rooms full
of people
get into big fights where the Conservatives say that logic
is
good and then say a bunch of
totally illogical
things, and the Liberals say that logic
is bad and
then say a bunch of completely logical
things!
What
a fucking mess. (NOTE: More so than because of any
other single
problem, this
problem is why 1585 was started.)
Nature/Natural:
It is
extremely
common for people to defend something by claiming that it is natural,
and for people to oppose something by saying that it is unnatural.
But how valuable are these arguments? Surprisingly,
for so common a
form of rhetoric, they are nearly worthless. This is because
people are
using the terms “natural” and “unnatural” as shorthand for saying that
they
don’t believe
there is anything wrong
with a certain thing, or that they do
believe there is
something wrong with it, in a moral
sense — and this is not what “natural” and “unnatural” actually
mean. Natural
is a descriptive term, not a prescriptive one — i.e., it can
only be
accurately used to say whether something happens in Nature, and not to
say whether that thing is good or bad. If you think about it,
there are
many good
things that are unnatural,
and many bad
things that are (unfortunately) natural.
Curing a disease, for example, is unnatural
in the
sense that if Nature
were to take its natural
course, the person would die — but we certainly do not think
that it’s
wrong to cure the sick*. Murder and other crimes, on the
other hand,
are natural
in the sense that humans have
(unfortunately) always done those things, and
“natural” is only a description
of how
animals behave (remember that
humans are technically
animals), but we all agree that these things are nevertheless bad.
So, for example, when Liberals and Conservatives argue about
homosexuality, and the Liberals say that it is
“natural” and the
Conservatives say that it is “unnatural,” they are
all wasting their
time (and ours) with arguments that sound good but don’t
really mean
anything — technically, homosexuality is natural
in the sense
that it has always existed (well, it wasn’t invented in a
lab, right?),
but this says nothing about whether it is “right”
or “wrong” in a moral
sense,
because something natural
can still be bad
and something unnatural
can still be good,
so both the Liberals and the Conservatives should come up with
different arguments. (NOTE: 1585s firmly believe
that there is
absolutely nothing wrong with being gay — it’s just
that we have a
totally different explanation for this position than most other
Liberals do.)
*I
realize that, technically, any and all
scientific
inventions are actually natural,
in the sense that
it is natural
for humans to invent things.
It’s just that this definition would mean that
there is
actually no such thing
as something “unnatural,”
because everything that exists, exists, and there is noplace for
something to exist besides in Nature (well, where else is
there?).
“Nazi”:
The word
appears in quotation marks because, although obviously everyone knows
what actual
Nazis were, the term is frequently
misused when people employ it in a metaphoric sense. When you
call
someone a Nazi
today, you usually don’t mean that they are literally a
follower of
Adolf Hitler — you only mean that they are “being
an asshole” about
something. But in what way? Usually, someone gets
called a Nazi
when they are forcefully
asserting an opinion, from the
standpoint that it is the only acceptable opinion.
But is
doing this actually always wrong? If the goal is avoiding
conflict,
then we could see how one might think that “never forcefully
assert
that any opinion is the only acceptable one” would be a good
rule. But
if avoiding conflict is
actually the goal, then
we’re afraid
this rule has failed miserably. As with many “good
rules,” the problem
with this one is that good
people observe it while bad
people do not — the
result being that the opinions
of bad people keep
getting forcefully asserted,
while the opinions of good people don’t,
bringing about a situation like to
the one described in this couplet by
William Butler Yeats:
"The
best lack all
conviction, while the worst
Are
full of
passionate intensity."
So,
I submit the correction that the metaphoric use of
the term Nazi
should be confined to people who forcefully assert bad
things, whereas someone who forcefully asserts good
things should be considered the opposite
of a Nazi.
Of course, figuring out the difference would require thinking,
and people don't like thinking, which is probably why the “don’t ever
assert
anything” rule got so popular in the first place.
But you
know what? You’re supposed
to
think.
Thinking is good.
In fact, I’m going to
go ahead and forcefully assert
that thinking is
good. Ooh, look at me, I'm a “thinking Nazi!”
Morons.
Normal:
Like natural,
this word is far less valuable
as an argumentative term than people seem to think it is. Its
only
accurate definition refers to what is statistically
normal — i.e., to what the majority
does
or believes, or to what is popular.
So
people who
would use the argument that something is normal
as
an argument that the thing in question is also good
are arguing fallaciously, as there are any number of obvious examples
of things that are normal
but not good — eating
unhealthy food, taking insufficient or no exercise,
lying or
breaking promises, believing and repeating gossip, and watching too
much TV are just a few. Even religious people, who seem to
prize the
idea of normalcy
more than most, must be compelled
to admit that what is normal
is not always good
by the simple fact that committing
sins is normal,
in the sense that the majority
of people commit
sins.
Occasionally, someone will
even try to defend or exalt a certain idea
or behavior as normal
even when they do not
mean that it is typical of the majority. In these cases, what
the
person usually means is that the idea or behavior is acceptable
in a moral
sense. This may of course be true,
since there are many ideas or behaviors that are perfectly morally
acceptable, or even morally desirable, even though they are
uncommon — but the person should be advised to use a term other
than normal
to make this case, since the term is both vague and unpersuasive.
Open-Minded:
When two
people are
arguing with each other, one will frequently accuse the other of not
being open-minded;
in fact, they may each
accuse the other of this. But what does it actually mean?
In the sense
that most people use it, it means that your opponent is unwilling
to consider the possibility that your position might be true.
But should an opponent always
do this?
Suppose they
have proof
that your position is false?
If someone tells you that penguins can fly, and you know for
a fact
that they can’t, are you failing to be appropriately open-minded?
Of course not. The term only makes sense in
situations where more
than one explanation is possible.
Many people also seem to think that
the strangeness
of the explanation is an issue, when this is in fact not the case.
Consider a situation where two people are trying to figure
out why a
few small objects in a room moved around while no-one was there:
one of
them insists it was ghosts, and the other says that it may have been a
small earthquake, or an electrical disturbance caused by the computer,
or the bass from the stereo shaking the table, or that their friends
might be playing a joke on them. The person who says it was
ghosts is
more likely to accuse the other of not being open-minded,
but in fact the reverse
is true, because the second
person is willing to consider several
explanations
whereas the first person is willing to consider only one.
Opinion:
Popularly, this
term is used
to refer to anything that a
particular person might believe — and
technically it does; the problem
is
that people tend to make insufficient
distinction
between different types of
opinions.
People
frequently use the phrase “I have a right
to my
opinion” to mean that
they are allowed to
believe whatever they like, and
indeed this is true, but it
does not
mean that all opinions are equally
valid. As explained in
the entry for
“Free
Speech,” being allowed to believe
anything you like is rather like being allowed to say
anything you like — it is legally
permissible,
but that does not make it true.
If one
person
prefers a certain painting to another, and a second person prefers the
second painting, they might agree
to disagree,
saying that each has a right
to their opinion — and
indeed, there is no way to prove which of two paintings
is better; the matter is entirely subjective.
But
what about when someone claims a right
to their opinion
in a matter where proof
exists that they are in
fact wrong?
It means that they are allowed
to believe this; that the other person cannot do
anything
about it, or force
them to change their
mind — and this is true; but being stubborn
is hardly the same thing as being right.
1585s
believe that it is always better to believe something true than
something false — not only in a philosophical
sense, but in a moral
sense, since almost all moral
wrongs are committed by people who have allowed themselves to believe
something false.
Prejudice:
This is a serious issue, which is why it really
pisses me
off when people use this word incorrectly — misusing
the word prejudice
by applying it to things that aren't
actually prejudice trivializes
things that actually are
prejudice. So, okay, prejudice is when you assume that some
characteristic (like something about their intelligence or abilities)
must be true of someone just because another characteristic (like their
race or gender) is. But you probably already knew
that, so
what's the problem, right? The problem
is when
people expand
the definition of prejudice to mean not
liking anyone for any
reason.
Have you ever heard someone try to argue that “I hate prejudiced people”
is a contradiction in terms, on the grounds that hating prejudiced people
is itself
a form of prejudice?
Well, that's a crock of crap, because no it isn't.
Look
back to the initial definition, and then look at the word itself: prejudice
means pre-judging
someone, i.e., assuming
something about them is true before you know
it is.
If you know
that someone is racist, then it is not
prejudice to hate them
for being racist, since you are not assuming
that
they're racist; you know
they are. Only
what they're
doing is prejudice;
what you're
doing isn't pre-judging,
it's just regular
judging, which is fine
if the person is actually
doing something wrong.
Prescriptive/Descriptive:
Unlike most
of the other terms on this page, these two words are here not
because they are misused,
but because they are not
used at all in situations where
they should
be used. A prescriptive
(or “pragmatic”)
argument is an argument about what someone should
or should
not do; a descriptive
(or “conceptual”)
argument is an argument about what
is or is not true.
Confusion frequently arises in arguments when
someone’s
audience thinks their argument is prescriptive,
when in reality they are only being descriptive.
For example, if someone argues that humans evolved from apes
partly
because they began eating meat, which contained enough protein to allow
their brains to grow larger, the person is not
making an anti-vegetarian argument and saying that there is a moral
imperative to eat meat; they are
only stating the fact
that this
is what happened, and not
anything about whether eating meat
is good or bad.
Because so many people
are in the
habit of believing only what
they want to be true,
people frequently assume that if someone is asserting that a given
thing is true, then they must like
the fact that it
is true. For example, if someone doesn’t believe in
God,
others may accuse them of being “against”
God, or of wanting
it to be the case that there is
no God, or even of disagreeing
with every single principle
espoused by a particular religion — but these people are
confusing a descriptive
argument with a prescriptive
one; the person may very well wish
that there were
a God, but simply not believe
it to be the case
that there is a God. (NOTE: Very nearly everyone
who doesn't believe in
God still wishes
that there were a God, including me — of course, the God I wish there
were would not have many of the same opinions as the God that most
religious people believe to exist.)
Theory:
Since science comes
up a lot
in politics (when
discussing issues like global warming, evolution, or abortion, for
example), I thought that theory
was an important
term to
include here, since it is one of those words that people use
differently in day-to-day life from what it means in the strict
scientific sense. In day-to-day life, people use the word theory
to mean “guess,” like if you tell your friend that
you have a theory
that So-and-so has secretly been hooking up with So-and-so.
This usage
leads to confusion when people argue about things like the Theory
of Evolution, because some people think it means that scientists are
just guessing.
But in science, you only
call
something a theory
after it has been tested over
and over again, and you have a lot
of evidence to
support it and absolutely no
evidence against it,
even though you have looked as
hard as you could
for evidence against it. In other words,
“theory”
is the highest “rank”
that an idea can have in science; scientists never call anything a fact,
because it is considered impolite in science to officially call
something a fact (although scientists still use the word
“fact” when
they are speaking casually to regular people). The word that
scientists
use to mean “guess” is hypothesis — you
call an idea a hypothesis
at the
beginning, before
you test it, but only call it a theory
at the end, after
you have tested it in every way you can and it is still the best
explanation you have. (NOTE: The fact that I
talked about science here
may lead some readers to suspect that The 1585 always agrees with Liberals, but this is not strictly true. Yes,
there are
lots of issues where the Conservatives are the ones who disagree with
the scientists — but remember that there are also lots of
issues where
the Liberals are the ones who disagree with the scientists, like with
stuff about the differences between men and women, for example.
In
pretty much all cases where there is a disagreement between scientists
and other people, 1585s agree with the scientists — sometimes
this
means that we disagree with Conservatives, and sometimes it means that
we disagree with Liberals.)
“Think
for Yourself”:
This phrase is usually used as a recommendation to people who
appear to
be under the influence of dogma — but,
as
is the case in the entry for the term dogma
itself,
one should think carefully about where the phrase is or is not
applicable. Someone may be told to “think
for
themselves” if the
person appears to have passively
accepted what someone else
has told them about a
certain topic — but is it always
wrong to
believe what someone else told you? After all, someone
else
taught us math and science, and even the words we use when we speak to
one another — we did not all figure
out for
ourselves that light has mass;
Einstein proved it, and we
believe it because Einstein said so. But Einstein could prove
that he was right with experiments that supported his
idea — many of us may not be smart
enough
to understand
the experiments, but we trust that other
scientists would
have figured it out by now if
there was a problem with them.
And besides, when someone tells you to “think
for
yourself,” they are
usually not even really
telling you to think for
yourself — they
are telling to you agree with
them. If
what they
mean is that their position has more evidence or better arguments to
support it, then that
is what they should
say — and if this indeed what they mean, then the expression is redundant,
because they are not telling you to think
for yourself
so much as they are telling you simply to think
at all (and this is in fact
usually what the expression
basically means). 99% of the times I've ever heard it, the expression “think for yourself” has been worthless.
This is one of the great difficulties
that plagues us when we are
choosing what and what not to believe: it is not
always
possible to figure out for ourselves
whether or not a given idea is true — either because we are
not smart
enough, or because we do not have the time or the proper equipment.
Very often, we must simply choose which of two (or more)
people to
believe about a given issue — and even when one person claims
to have
proof, we may not be able to understand the proof. And so we
are forced
to look for clues
about who is right by asking
ourselves questions: which
of the people appears to be smarter? which one do more smart people
seem to agree with? which one has been right more often in the past?
does one of them have something to gain by lying? when someone objects,
does the person explain themselves better, or just get angry? do the
people who object have evidence
that the person is
wrong, or simply want
them to be wrong?
and so on. The 1585 will never ask you to believe
something
simply because I say so.
Home
|
|
|
|