Vague, Ill-Defined, or Loaded Terms in Discussions

[Debater Slayer]

What are some terms that you find to be too vague, ill-defined, or loaded to be meaningful in any rigorous or productive discussion?

I'll start with a few:

- "The civilized world": What exactly distinguishes the "civilized world" from the "uncivilized" counterpart? Often, I see this term being used to refer to developed countries, which seems to me an implication that developing and third-world or poor countries are "uncivilized." There's no context in which I have seen this term being used where I wouldn't have found another term more accurate and less derogatory or (sometimes) less chauvinistic.

- "Western culture"/"Eastern culture": I have seen articles detailing some of the problems with these specific terms, mainly that they're generally ill-defined and too broad. For instance, the US, the UK, Hungary, and Bulgaria all technically fall within the "Western culture" umbrella, yet the first two significantly differ from the latter two culturally, politically, and historically.

Similarly, China, Iraq, Egypt, and India are all supposed to be "Eastern cultures," but they're fundamentally different from one another in so many ways that, in most serious contexts, grouping them together becomes almost entirely meaningless aside from a geographical context referring to the hemispheres of the planet.

- "Reason": A lot of the time, what someone considers to be in line with "reason" is merely a synonym for what they consider to be ideologically, politically, or religiously palatable or convincing. This is not to say that the term can't be useful; it's just that it seems to me an overused and frequently misapplied one, especially when people are being needlessly dismissive and condescending toward someone else.

Share some of yours!

 

[Stevicus]

What are some terms that you find to be too vague, ill-defined, or loaded to be meaningful in any rigorous or productive discussion?

I'll start with a few:

- "The civilized world": What exactly distinguishes the "civilized world" from the "uncivilized" counterpart? Often, I see this term being used to refer to developed countries, which seems to me an implication that developing and third-world or poor countries are "uncivilized." There's no context in which I have seen this term being used where I wouldn't have found another term more accurate and less derogatory or (sometimes) less chauvinistic.

- "Western culture"/"Eastern culture": I have seen articles detailing some of the problems with these specific terms, mainly that they're generally ill-defined and too broad. For instance, the US, the UK, Hungary, and Bulgaria all technically fall within the "Western culture" umbrella, yet the first two significantly differ from the latter two culturally, politically, and historically.

Similarly, China, Iraq, Egypt, and India are all supposed to be "Eastern cultures," but they're fundamentally different from one another in so many ways that, in most serious contexts, grouping them together becomes almost entirely meaningless aside from a geographical context referring to the hemispheres of the planet.

- "Reason": A lot of the time, what someone considers to be in line with "reason" is merely a synonym for what they consider to be ideologically, politically, or religiously palatable or convincing. This is not to say that the term can't be useful; it's just that it seems to me an overused and frequently misapplied one, especially when people are being needlessly dismissive and condescending toward someone else.

Share some of yours!

When I saw the phrase "civilized world," it occurred to me that "free world" is another oft-used phrase which is ill-defined and loaded. During the Cold War, the "free world" included Pinochet's Chile and Iran under the Shah, among other places.

In fact, terms like "freedom" and "democracy" are often used as well, but when you think about it, they're pretty vague and loaded just by themselves. Along the same lines, terms like "fascist," "communist," and "socialist" often get tossed around rather freely.

 

[Revoltingest]

What word isn't up for grabs, eh.
Most here object to dictionary definitions.
And just recently, I saw "God" & "energy" come to mean the same thing.
Thermondynamics must've changed since I took those courses.

 

[Debater Slayer]

When I saw the phrase "civilized world," it occurred to me that "free world" is another oft-used phrase which is ill-defined and loaded. During the Cold War, the "free world" included Pinochet's Chile and Iran under the Shah, among other places.

I was going to include that, but I thought it was just a tad less ambiguous than "civilized world." Still, I fully agree with you. What is the "free world"? Can we call a country "free" if half of its states could charge a woman with murder for having an abortion, or if someone could be bankrupted and enslaved to a minimum-wage job just for having a medical emergency?

In fact, terms like "freedom" and "democracy" are often used as well, but when you think about it, they're pretty vague and loaded just by themselves. Along the same lines, terms like "fascist," "communist," and "socialist" often get tossed around rather freely.

Agreed, for the most part. I think democracy is a lot easier to delineate than the rest, but that's about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are some terms that you find to be too vague, ill-defined, or loaded to be meaningful in any rigorous or productive discussion?

"Spiritual" and "spirituality"

"Supernatural"

 

[Debater Slayer]

"Spiritual" and "spirituality"

"Supernatural"

I find the term "supernatural" to be an oxymoron when used to describe some phenomenon we can supposedly observe or detect (e.g., spirits or ghosts): if it is truly detectable or observable in nature, it's not "supernatural." If it's neither detectable nor observable, it's practically indistnguishable from something that doesn't exist, so how can we say that it exists, let alone that it exists and is "supernatural"?

 

[Debater Slayer]

What word isn't up for grabs, eh.
Most here object to dictionary definitions.
And just recently, I saw "God" & "energy" come to mean the same thing.
Thermondynamics must've changed since I took those courses.

To be fair, there are so many concepts of deities that defining energy as one isn't so outlandish.

I would generally only have a problem with such a definition if its proponents wanted to impose it on science classes or academic circles.

 

[icehorse]

CRT, woke, conservative, liberal, phobia...

 

[vulcanlogician]

"The civilized world": What exactly distinguishes the "civilized world" from the "uncivilized" counterpart? Often, I see this term being used to refer to developed countries, which seems to me an implication that developing and third-world or poor countries are "uncivilized." There's no context in which I have seen this term being used where I wouldn't have found another term more accurate and less derogatory or (sometimes) less chauvinistic.

I very much agree on this one. Especially considering that the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks are often considered "civilized" by comparison to, say, simple tribal cultures. Yet these "civilizations" institutionalized slavery, patriarchy, and organized warfare. Seems a bit wrong to call a concentration and distillation of those particular human practices "civilized." But that's precisely what characterized the Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians.

 

[Koldo]

I find the term "supernatural" to be an oxymoron when used to describe some phenomenon we can supposedly observe or detect (e.g., spirits or ghosts): if it is truly detectable or observable in nature, it's not "supernatural." If it's neither detectable nor observable, it's practically indistnguishable from something that doesn't exist, so how can we say that it exists, let alone that it exists and is "supernatural"?

I think the entire point of the label is to point to things that might sometimes exhibit physical properties without being physical itself.

 

[Koldo]

What are some terms that you find to be too vague, ill-defined, or loaded to be meaningful in any rigorous or productive discussion?

I'll start with a few:

- "The civilized world": What exactly distinguishes the "civilized world" from the "uncivilized" counterpart? Often, I see this term being used to refer to developed countries, which seems to me an implication that developing and third-world or poor countries are "uncivilized." There's no context in which I have seen this term being used where I wouldn't have found another term more accurate and less derogatory or (sometimes) less chauvinistic.

- "Western culture"/"Eastern culture": I have seen articles detailing some of the problems with these specific terms, mainly that they're generally ill-defined and too broad. For instance, the US, the UK, Hungary, and Bulgaria all technically fall within the "Western culture" umbrella, yet the first two significantly differ from the latter two culturally, politically, and historically.

Similarly, China, Iraq, Egypt, and India are all supposed to be "Eastern cultures," but they're fundamentally different from one another in so many ways that, in most serious contexts, grouping them together becomes almost entirely meaningless aside from a geographical context referring to the hemispheres of the planet.

- "Reason": A lot of the time, what someone considers to be in line with "reason" is merely a synonym for what they consider to be ideologically, politically, or religiously palatable or convincing. This is not to say that the term can't be useful; it's just that it seems to me an overused and frequently misapplied one, especially when people are being needlessly dismissive and condescending toward someone else.

Share some of yours!

Spiritual and Energy.
They don't mean anything in specific. Vague terminology that gives the impression everyone is agreeing with something... but not really.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be fair, there are so many concepts of deities that defining energy as one isn't so outlandish.

No, it is outlandish....energy willing.
Praise energy, peace be upon it.

 

[Heyo]

What are some terms that you find to be too vague, ill-defined, or loaded to be meaningful in any rigorous or productive discussion?

I'll start with a few:

- "The civilized world": What exactly distinguishes the "civilized world" from the "uncivilized" counterpart? Often, I see this term being used to refer to developed countries, which seems to me an implication that developing and third-world or poor countries are "uncivilized." There's no context in which I have seen this term being used where I wouldn't have found another term more accurate and less derogatory or (sometimes) less chauvinistic.

- "Western culture"/"Eastern culture": I have seen articles detailing some of the problems with these specific terms, mainly that they're generally ill-defined and too broad. For instance, the US, the UK, Hungary, and Bulgaria all technically fall within the "Western culture" umbrella, yet the first two significantly differ from the latter two culturally, politically, and historically.

Similarly, China, Iraq, Egypt, and India are all supposed to be "Eastern cultures," but they're fundamentally different from one another in so many ways that, in most serious contexts, grouping them together becomes almost entirely meaningless aside from a geographical context referring to the hemispheres of the planet.

- "Reason": A lot of the time, what someone considers to be in line with "reason" is merely a synonym for what they consider to be ideologically, politically, or religiously palatable or convincing. This is not to say that the term can't be useful; it's just that it seems to me an overused and frequently misapplied one, especially when people are being needlessly dismissive and condescending toward someone else.

Share some of yours!

"God"

There is no agreed upon definition. Any two people who believe (or disbelieve) in the concept have differing definitions. We should stop talking about it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I very much agree on this one. Especially considering that the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks are often considered "civilized" by comparison to, say, simple tribal cultures. Yet these "civilizations" institutionalized slavery, patriarchy, and organized warfare. Seems a bit wrong to call a concentration and distillation of those particular human practices "civilized." But that's precisely what characterized the Egyptians, Greeks, and Mesopotamians.

The clue as to the definition of civilisation is in the name. From the Latin civis or civilis, meaning town or city dweller. The cultures you list obviously predate the Latin definition, but they were nevertheless all cultures based around cities. Indeed, the concept of the city state was a defining characteristic of the Classical Greek world.

The Romans incidentally, identified as barbarian any culture which wasn’t literate, and consequently had no recorded history or written law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And just recently, I saw "God" & "energy" come to mean the same thing.

I can assure you it's not new. I don't know how old the usage is exactly, but it seems to predate us who aren't living impared.

What word isn't up for grabs, eh.
Most here object to dictionary definitions.

As I say, a dictionary is just one of a few different tools for understanding what a word means. Using a dictionary for philosophical, religious and economical ideas especially is like using a screw driver set meant for working on small electronics while you're working on a car.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can assure you it's not new. I don't know how old the usage is exactly, but it seems to predate us who aren't living impared.

As I say, a dictionary is just one of a few different tools for understanding what a word means. Using a dictionary for philosophical, religious and economical ideas especially is like using a screw driver set meant for working on small electronics while you're working on a car.

Thus words can mean anything, you bifurcated toaster.

 

[syo]

What are some terms that you find to be too vague, ill-defined, or loaded to be meaningful in any rigorous or productive discussion?

EVERYTHING

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thus words can mean anything, you bifurcated toaster.

“When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean. Neither more nor less”, said Humpty Dumpty

 

[Revoltingest]

“When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean. Neither more nor less”, said Humpty Dumpty

may the screws of a thousand tables infest your orbital crevices!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is why I tend to prefer using invented words. Without the scourge of common usage to muddy them, they can only ever mean precisely what I intend for them to mean. That seemed to me to be the most crostalicious way to handle the problem.