Bonus words!

[firecat]

Bonus word 1: "logomachy"

From a good comment in Scalzi's blog. bcholmes pointed at it elsenet.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/09/06/shut-up-and-listen/#comment-273439

Xopher on September 7, 2011 - 4:36 pm

John, I learned the word ‘logomachy’ to describe that kind of thing: trying to win an argument by controlling the terms of the argument, or by outlawing the terms needed by the other side(s) to make their points.

It’s a tactic some employ consciously, and others without quite realizing it.

Scalzi's original post is worth reading too. It's entitled "Shut Up and Listen," which I think is excellent advice for many situations. (In this particular situation, it's being applied to conversations about oppression and privilege.)

Bonus word 2 (from the blog post): "wealthsplaining"

Comments

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I can see this as a negative term too, but you know, I also think it's simply human. Words are what we fight with (mainly, and better than the alternatives) and hence sometimes for.

Am I anti-abortion or pro-choice? Well, actually I'm both, but that position is obscured because each side has chosen a term with more appeal.

That's just one example. I forget who said it, but something I quote often is, "With animals, it is eat or be eaten. With human beings, it is define or be defined."

So the worst wars are when one side tries to pick the word for the other--which, alas, Republicans are much better at than Democrats. Death tax. These words have real power,and I wish we fought against them better.

And no, I'm not missing the point; I'm enlarging on it. Logomachy does interfere with discussing the substance of what's going on, but I think often it's not just something ancillary or willful, though it's easy to see it that way.