Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Phillip Winn

@aelman @palafo @davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite

I’m sorry, are you arguing that the New York Times should base it’s editorial choices about technical products on the words non-technical average people use? The companies that market things using bad labels win if they convince enough non-savvy people?

Amazing and sad.

5 comments
Jared White replied to Phillip

@pwinn @aelman @palafo @davidtoddmccarty Seriously! This conversation is beginning to border on the ludicrous. In what other industry do industry terms get to be redefined by…like, whoever? Do average non-medical people get to define medical terms? Do average non-civil engineering people get to define civil engineering terms? Do the manufacturers of aerospace infrastructure get to have their terminology redefined by some (waves hands) mass group of people?

It's absurd.

Adam Elman replied to Jared

@jaredwhite @pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty Um, yes, people redefine “medical” or “engineering” terms all the time, and popular definitions often vary from the true “technical” definition. Language evolves through usage.

Jared White replied to Adam

@aelman @pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty Not only do I disagree with this, it scares me. This is how we end up with "alt-facts" and conspiracy theories. Without some semblance of a shared reality where well-established terms actually mean something and they're hard to hijack by disingenuous parties, culture collapses.

Adam Elman replied to Jared

@jaredwhite @aelman @pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty I’m not saying this is necessarily a *good* thing in all cases. I’m just noting how language actually evolves in reality. And yes, this *is* one of the vectors that leads us to "alt-facts” and conspiracy theories.

That said, I think the ship has sailed on the definition of “podcast”. The ship has definitely *not* sailed on advocating against making podcasts exclusive.

Adam Elman replied to Phillip

@pwinn @palafo @davidtoddmccarty @jaredwhite I’m arguing that it’s unreasonable to expect non-tech-savvy people, *or the people who write for them*, to split hairs about terms that have clearly accepted meanings among the masses. It comes off sounding like Kimberly-Clark calling people out for referring to generic tissue as “Kleenex” - it’s fine, and even legally sound, but it’s not going to change anything.

Go Up