RVN: The stretching of concepts – how words lose their sharpness
Some words start sharp.
They describe something concrete.
Then they acquire moral charge.
Then they are stretched.
Racism is a clear example.
Originally it meant judging and treating people on the basis of biological ancestry or skin colour, with the idea that one group is inherently superior.
That was a precise and heavy accusation.
The term is now regularly expanded to nationality, culture, criticism of values or statistical outcomes.
Anyone who rejects a culture or calls certain practices problematic risks the label.
The broader the term becomes, the easier it is to disqualify someone without addressing the substance.
The moral charge remains; the precision disappears.
We see the same mechanism with other words.
LGBTI began as LGB: a relatively sharp focus on sexual orientation.
Then more letters were added.
Each expansion made the umbrella larger and the boundaries vaguer. Criticism of specific parts – for example rapid medical steps for minors – is more quickly framed as an attack on the entire group.
Disinformation, hate, violence, safety: always the same pattern.
A concept acquires moral or political charge, is stretched, and criticism of that stretching is equated with defending the original evil.
Interestingly, the mechanism also works the other way.
Sometimes words are narrowed or made taboo.
A concrete example: the word “woman”.
In a growing number of official and institutional contexts it may only be used in a meaning that excludes or relativises biology. Anyone who holds to the biological definition risks the label “transphobe” or worse. The discussion does not become broader; it becomes narrower.
That too is a form of control over language.
Why this matters
Language that is no longer precise is hard to check.
And what cannot be checked easily becomes a black box.
That is exactly why the Open Internet Manifest insists on verifiable definitions, open data and sharp language.
Not because words are sacred, but because vague or narrowed words give power to whoever gets to fill them in.
Question for you
Which concept do you see stretched or narrowed most often?
And do you notice that the discussion becomes sharper or vaguer as a result?
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
### RVN: The stretching of concepts – how words lose their sharpness
Some words start sharp.
They describe something concrete.
Then they acquire moral charge.
Then they are stretched.
Racism is a clear example.
Originally it meant judging and treating people on the basis of biological ancestry or skin colour, with the idea that one group is inherently superior.
That was a precise and heavy accusation.
The term is now regularly expanded to nationality, culture, criticism of values or statistical outcomes.
Anyone who rejects a culture or calls certain practices problematic risks the label.
The broader the term becomes, the easier it is to disqualify someone without addressing the substance.
The moral charge remains; the precision disappears.
We see the same mechanism with other words.
LGBTI began as LGB: a relatively sharp focus on sexual orientation.
Then more letters were added.
Each expansion made the umbrella larger and the boundaries vaguer. Criticism of specific parts – for example rapid medical steps for minors – is more quickly framed as an attack on the entire group.
Disinformation, hate, violence, safety: always the same pattern.
A concept acquires moral or political charge, is stretched, and criticism of that stretching is equated with defending the original evil.
Interestingly, the mechanism also works the other way.
Sometimes words are narrowed or made taboo.
A concrete example: the word “woman”.
In a growing number of official and institutional contexts it may only be used in a meaning that excludes or relativises biology. Anyone who holds to the biological definition risks the label “transphobe” or worse. The discussion does not become broader; it becomes narrower.
That too is a form of control over language.
### Why this matters
Language that is no longer precise is hard to check.
And what cannot be checked easily becomes a black box.
That is exactly why the Open Internet Manifest insists on verifiable definitions, open data and sharp language.
Not because words are sacred, but because vague or narrowed words give power to whoever gets to fill them in.
**Question for you**
Which concept do you see stretched or narrowed most often?
And do you notice that the discussion becomes sharper or vaguer as a result?
#Language #Definitions #Racism #LGBTI #RealityVsNarrative #RVN #OpenInternetManifest
https://openinternetmanifest.org
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
Deel dit bericht
Korte versie: Teaser voor X Raw Markdown: Exacte originele tekst (voor verifier) Unicode: Mooie opmaak voor Facebook / andere platforms
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.
💸 Support the Open Internet Manifest ❤️
This manifest only exists thanks to your donations.
Every satoshi or monero helps enormously (servers, domains, development).
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.