[ExI] Protest

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:57 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: 
> 
>  
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat
> 
> Perhaps if the author were to rewrite using only the words in the current edition of Miriam Webster using the definitions found there, the meaning would be clear.
>  
> Let me try to guess the words that might have given some difficulty with the piece, roughly in order of appearance
> 
> chud -- term of opprobrium used against the alt-right; think of it as calling someone an asshole
> POC -- person of colour
> fashy/fash -- fascist (adjective/noun)
> apparatchik -- official or bureaucrat, usually meant as a snear
> woke -- enlightened or aware, as in consciousness raising
> protest managerial class -- group of people, usually politicians, who attempt to control protests for their class or personal interests…
> 
>  
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
>  
>  
> Hi Dan, since these novel terms have no consensus definitions, I am free to assign my own meaning until the author translates the document into a standardized form.
>  
> chud: a variation or misspelling of chad, which is a bit of paper.
> POC: point of contact.
> Fashy/fash: one who follows the latest fashion trends.
> Apparatchik: a Russian government worker
> Woke: what I did this morning at the end of my slumber
> Protest managerial class: a instructional gathering designed for those who would lead a company, specifically focused on how to handle disagreements.
>  
> We standardize language for a reason.  Insider dialects are fine, so long as they are not intended to convey meaning to those outside the community.  Perhaps that was never the intention.
>  
> spike

New terms and new uses for old terms arise all the time. Standardization happens when a term or new use of a term gains ground. That's just part of normal language change. (Don't believe me. Look up how the terms 'girl' and 'silly' changed over time.) Does this mean _you_ will eschew using any new terms or using any old terms in new ways? I doubt it.

In this particular instance, there's very little problem understanding the piece if you simply put in a tiny amount of effort. Yeah, one can play around pretending you don't understand that in a political analysis piece that 'fash' almost certainly means 'fascist' rather than 'fashionable' or that saying 'Jane is a POC' means 'Jane is a point of contact,' but that's just being obstinate. Maybe the obstinacy is for humorous effect, but I feel it was more dog piling to avoid respond to the analysis.

Further, yeah, Gillis has a target audience that probably doesn’t include everyone. In fact, I’d say almost all topical pieces are speaking to an audience that’s a tiny fraction of the whole language community. This is nothing new. If you read ancient literature, many times it requires scholarship because you need to grasp who was speaking to whom rather than pretend everything is crystal clear to everyone at all times. (And this isn’t because any of these folks are being intentionally obscure. It’s just simply that it’s hard to guess how one will be misunderstood and often topical works have an immediate pragmatic aim, such as persuading someone right at the time of something — and not worrying that someone ten years or in another audience will find it hard to understand.)

Regards,

Dan
   Sample my Kindle books at:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200608/4027c874/attachment-0001.htm>