Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 8:11 pm

“How do you have a discussion with someone when language is intentionally denied the purpose of conveying meaning?”

Quote of the Day, language edition, from Roch Smith in the comments at Ed’s place. He’s talking about economics but the phenomenon he describes applies to pretty much all our public discourse of late:

I used to try to argue with people who detached meaning from words, but it’s impossible. There are people for whom a legitimate “argument” involves ignoring the meaning of words or imbuing them with a meaning that they do not have, sometimes to the point of making them even the opposite of what they mean.

How do you have a discussion with someone when language is intentionally denied the purpose of conveying meaning? Some people view the purpose of a “debate” as constructing an impenetrable barricade against the intrusion of a new idea. Language is not for getting an idea from one mind to another, it is for keeping preconception unmolested; as such, it need not have any fidelity to meaning. The purpose of a “discussion” for the meaning-snatchers is to gainsay, block and frustrate — abandoning meaning serves that purpose well. But you can’t engage it except as a futility.

It’s like arguing with gibberish. One might as well be arguing with: “You said, ‘Keynes suffocated oranges for the transport of the orbiting oak spoons,’ but his dog collar chastity is more of an aerobic digestion, not the marbled decorum you wrongly espouse. So there!”

Roch poses the question mostly rhetorically, but its answer has real, and pernicious, real-world consequences — consequences that those in Washington who work with words for a living could, but choose not to, ameliorate. (And I know they know better because I trained some of them.)


  1. Happy meat losing snorkel, Lex.

    Comment by Roch101 — Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:32 am @ 8:32 am

  2. Damn. Now I know I’m going to make at least one trip to the dollar store to look for a meat-losing snorkel.

    Comment by Lex — Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:01 am @ 10:01 am

  3. Plagiarism is just stenography.

    Comment by Roch101 — Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:37 am @ 10:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: