system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People need to stop and think before arguing about terminology/semantics

I think it’s a flaw of CMV and also logic in general. This train of though started by reading a lot of the online debates about the term “concentration camps.” I think the debate is relatively absurd for a variety of reasons on both sides. First of all, no matter what you call them the realities within them are the same.  Secondly, I think it’s severely intellectually disingenuous to argue about terminology when you hold a strong underlying belief that you are trying to prove by using certain terminology. More than this we often lose sight of reality when arguing terminology. 

For a relatively absurd example, let’s say you(a liberal) and me (a conservative) watch a video of ISIS beheading someone. I say “wow that’s really what radical Islam has done to the Middle East” and you say “wow that’s a disgusting example of what religion does to people.” We then go on to debate whether or not calling ISIS “radical Islamists” is really the appropriate term and whether or not I am a bigot or something else. Despite this, I clearly felt empathy for the people who were killed and these people were likely Muslim. 

Lost in this is someone just had there fucking head chopped off and I the conservative felt empathy toward them. This is a huge point in my opinion. Yet, if someone corrects my terminology I might feel far less empathy.

Now that’s how I feel looking at American politics. When you break it down, people often agree on many things. It’s horrible that nearly a murder a day happens in Chicago or Baltimore. We want the kids to have better opportunities. Yet, we let terminology override our common sensibility and if a conservative calls something “ghetto” we get in a froth. We use words that we know the other side will hate and the reject words that they use for various reasons.  Now words are powerful and are the root of meaning and they do have historical context. Yet sometimes to change someone’s mind I firmly believe that you need to accept some of how they define the terms in question and look for common ground. I’m not rejecting debates of semantics, meaning or definition but merely saying that they can be counterproductive when people have heavily ingrained definitions. 

I will give out a delta for someone who gives examples where appreciable good has been done in changing a persons opinions by question the definition of a word that they were using. Thanks in advance for your responses.

Edit: I’m speaking about American politics, and polarizing issues in general where the mere usage of word might trigger such a negative reaction by one side that will result in the conversation not being resolved. A better example is the term “privilege.”  In America, conservatives hate his word when it is used to describe advantages based on unchangeable factors such as parent money, race, etc. I have personally convinced conservatives to acknowledge advantages that are not a result of individual hard work and based on race, class, sexuality by never mentioning the word privilege. I’m not arguing semantics aren’t important, so maybe my title is disingenuous but merely we need to consider whether or not arguing over a specific word is the best way to find common ground and change opinions.

Edit p2: Seems like some people construe my post as condoning hate speech. Again I’m taking an intentionally vague stance on this. I’m saying “people need to think” about arguments about semantics instead of “people should never.”  When conversing with an individual you need to decide if it’s best to use certain words that may offend them or whether or not it’s possible to change the definitions they use. In some cases it may be possible to get them to see the point without changing the definition. This is a separate instance, imo, from the use of retard or faggot because the individual using that word has a clear negative intent. The term “radical Islamist” probably has some negative intent behind it in my example, yet I’m stating that the conservatives empathy toward the individual killed may be the more relevant starting point for the discussing that the terminology.

Edit p3: My view has changed fam. I think it’s very important to be careful when discussing generalization like this because in some instances the speech itself can be indirectly or directly very harmful to a certain group.  Arguing about words may be beneficial even if views are shared if the words used are extremely offensive and or negative.  Thanks for the responses.
gpt
Okay — so when two people fundamentally disagree over whether a term is appropriate how should they resolve their dispute?

I think rational discourse is exactly the right way to resolve disputes like this. It's how you find out what exactly people mean by the terms they use. It's a peaceful resolution that gives both sides a chance to get at the underlying issues present yet hidden by semantics. And in general, is the only productive way to resolve disagreement.