this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
472 points (97.2% liked)

World News

32285 readers
1 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -4 points 1 year ago (15 children)

So that's the change you want to see in the world. Technical linguistic grammar takes precedence over political outreach.

I fully support your desire to spread vocabular competence. My impression from your first post was that you had other priorities.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Despite the erasure of the words’ meanings in the public consciousness, the concepts still exist.

If you have new, sexier names for the concepts which will accelerate their reintroduction into the public consciousness, I’m all ears.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It doesn't have to be sexier terminology, or even different terminology. Just don't drop the word "liberalism" into a conversation and expect the average person to understand what your talking about.

You could use "corporatism" which has kind of taken over that definition in common language. I know it's technically incorrect, but language also isn't static outside of academic disciplines. But ultimately you can use whatever language you want, just don't assume a particular definition will be understood without explanation.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could use "corporatism" which has kind of taken over that definition in common language

No one says "corporatism" in the real world. The better suggestion for an "alternative" is to just say "capitalism", because that's accurate enough.

nOOooOOOoooooo you can't blame capitalism! We have to make up a word that means "capitalism" but isn't capitalism and fix that (through reform! because we shouldn't try to abolish capitalism).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)