I understand the meaning you assign to it and think you’re wrong. I think you haven’t thought through the logical and ethical consequences of your meaning.
Meanings are arbitrary. They don’t have “ethical consequences”. It’s only what you do with the concepts you have at hand that have ethical consequences.
If we changed the definition of murder to be “eating strawberries” but kept all practical actions the same, there would be no ethical consequences. We would no longer say, “murder is wrong” though (because eating strawberries is perfectly acceptable) or “if you are found guilty of murder you’ll go to jail” (because what we now call murder would not be illegal)
So, what you object to is not a world in which politics means “decisions and activities concerning the governing of a population”, but a world in which certain things which are labelled politics are suppressed.
I’m glad for this opportunity to clarify your own position, but it was weird that I had to do it…
I already clarified My position on My blog, not once, nor twice, nor even thrice, but quice, each time building upon the ideas and exploring the definition of politics in a new context.
But it will not take Me an entire blog post to dismantle your claim that definitions can’t have ethical consequences. I can simply point out Trump’s definition of gender, or Albanese’s definition of antisemitism, as definitions with the potential to cause a great deal of harm. We choose how to construct our understanding of the world around us, and with this power comes a responsibility to do so wisely.
It’s not useful if it causes you to misunderstand people, which you obviously have done.
If your employer’s office policy is “no politics in working hours” are you able to not get fired?
I’m perfectly capable of understanding you, I simply disagree with you.
You understand the meaning of the word politics but disagree with it? Good how does that work?
I understand the meaning you assign to it and think you’re wrong. I think you haven’t thought through the logical and ethical consequences of your meaning.
Meanings are arbitrary. They don’t have “ethical consequences”. It’s only what you do with the concepts you have at hand that have ethical consequences.
If we changed the definition of murder to be “eating strawberries” but kept all practical actions the same, there would be no ethical consequences. We would no longer say, “murder is wrong” though (because eating strawberries is perfectly acceptable) or “if you are found guilty of murder you’ll go to jail” (because what we now call murder would not be illegal)
So, what you object to is not a world in which politics means “decisions and activities concerning the governing of a population”, but a world in which certain things which are labelled politics are suppressed.
I’m glad for this opportunity to clarify your own position, but it was weird that I had to do it…
I already clarified My position on My blog, not once, nor twice, nor even thrice, but quice, each time building upon the ideas and exploring the definition of politics in a new context.
But it will not take Me an entire blog post to dismantle your claim that definitions can’t have ethical consequences. I can simply point out Trump’s definition of gender, or Albanese’s definition of antisemitism, as definitions with the potential to cause a great deal of harm. We choose how to construct our understanding of the world around us, and with this power comes a responsibility to do so wisely.
I don’t remember the exact definitions they chose for those terms, so I don’t want to comment on those without knowing them precisely.