"I tend to stick to broadly understood and accepted definitions."
Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.
In software this has gotten completely out of control, with accurate terms being replaced with fuzzy and often meaningless ones. Everyone talks about "refactoring" but a dozen mentions could have eight different meanings.
The controversy over "woman" is just shocking, and the fact that a "trans woman" refers to a man should be setting off alarms. Words should have precise and clear meanings, since they are all we have to bridge between minds.
“Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.”
True. But enclave vocabulary (lovely term) tends to only work within those enclaves unless it’s validated.
Case in point, I don’t think anybody is confused what I mean when I use the word “women.” I’m referring to what the overwhelming majority of people mean when they say “woman.” I deliberately differentiate between women and trans women for this reason.
I don’t validate the enclave vocabulary simply by using language the way everybody already understands it. And the people pretending not to understand give themselves away by getting mad at me for not playing their game.
I adamantly do the same. I refuse to use he/she or (s)he or the singular they, defiantly continuing with the generic "he" and using "people" instead of "someone" so I don't have to pair the latter with "they."
I say "invitation" and "request" instead of using invite and ask as nouns. I still say "contact" instead of "reach out" ... you get the picture. Not all of these are enclave but they're part of the "warmth" defilement of the language that I refuse to go along with.
Since I do a lot of technical writing I dread that the time may come when an employer tells me to use "they" because I know what my answer will be.
The "woman" thing is a scent-mark like "Trump won." Well, I'm not a member of the pack.
From my time in the technical arm of the corporate word it became clear to me that the more fuzzy-buzzy words people used the less likely they were to have a real understanding of the subject matter. They were typically trying to baffle with bullshit.
And when their meetings are 100% buzz you better start distributing your CV because things are not going to last.
I was in a meeting at a company that started doing that agile horseshit. Someone mentioned "stories," which is what we used to call user scenarios. Nobody asked what it meant but they figured it out and within minutes everyone was shoehorning "stories" into every sentence. Nodding vigorously, so compulsive in their conformity I wanted to vomit.
We don't need to die to go to hell. It's right here.
Scott Adams got rich with his "Dilbert" cartoons because they capture the phenomenon so precisely. I had one "peer" that I found it difficult to not refer to as Wally. There were Pointy Haired Bosses everywhere.
Those methodologies have destroyed software development. They all require tons of meetings, recurring meetings, and when you hold a meeting for no other reason than its appearance on the calendar the chance of it being any use drops to zero, along with its chances of letting out early or being canceled.
Breaking a good developer's concentration is the best way to crush his productivity and the quality of his work, so another fad, er, approach came along in which software testing is more important than writing software. "Flow" is a thing of the past and even ordinary concentration is out of reach.
I think Dilbert was out for a few years before this horrible stuff started.
"I tend to stick to broadly understood and accepted definitions."
Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.
In software this has gotten completely out of control, with accurate terms being replaced with fuzzy and often meaningless ones. Everyone talks about "refactoring" but a dozen mentions could have eight different meanings.
The controversy over "woman" is just shocking, and the fact that a "trans woman" refers to a man should be setting off alarms. Words should have precise and clear meanings, since they are all we have to bridge between minds.
“Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.”
True. But enclave vocabulary (lovely term) tends to only work within those enclaves unless it’s validated.
Case in point, I don’t think anybody is confused what I mean when I use the word “women.” I’m referring to what the overwhelming majority of people mean when they say “woman.” I deliberately differentiate between women and trans women for this reason.
I don’t validate the enclave vocabulary simply by using language the way everybody already understands it. And the people pretending not to understand give themselves away by getting mad at me for not playing their game.
I adamantly do the same. I refuse to use he/she or (s)he or the singular they, defiantly continuing with the generic "he" and using "people" instead of "someone" so I don't have to pair the latter with "they."
I say "invitation" and "request" instead of using invite and ask as nouns. I still say "contact" instead of "reach out" ... you get the picture. Not all of these are enclave but they're part of the "warmth" defilement of the language that I refuse to go along with.
Since I do a lot of technical writing I dread that the time may come when an employer tells me to use "they" because I know what my answer will be.
The "woman" thing is a scent-mark like "Trump won." Well, I'm not a member of the pack.
From my time in the technical arm of the corporate word it became clear to me that the more fuzzy-buzzy words people used the less likely they were to have a real understanding of the subject matter. They were typically trying to baffle with bullshit.
And when their meetings are 100% buzz you better start distributing your CV because things are not going to last.
I was in a meeting at a company that started doing that agile horseshit. Someone mentioned "stories," which is what we used to call user scenarios. Nobody asked what it meant but they figured it out and within minutes everyone was shoehorning "stories" into every sentence. Nodding vigorously, so compulsive in their conformity I wanted to vomit.
We don't need to die to go to hell. It's right here.
Scott Adams got rich with his "Dilbert" cartoons because they capture the phenomenon so precisely. I had one "peer" that I found it difficult to not refer to as Wally. There were Pointy Haired Bosses everywhere.
Those methodologies have destroyed software development. They all require tons of meetings, recurring meetings, and when you hold a meeting for no other reason than its appearance on the calendar the chance of it being any use drops to zero, along with its chances of letting out early or being canceled.
Breaking a good developer's concentration is the best way to crush his productivity and the quality of his work, so another fad, er, approach came along in which software testing is more important than writing software. "Flow" is a thing of the past and even ordinary concentration is out of reach.
I think Dilbert was out for a few years before this horrible stuff started.