Clarence "Sparr" Risher

Trigger warning

"Your definition is useless to me". I find myself saying this a lot. People interpret it as an insult or a dismissal. It is probably both, but that doesn’t stop it from also being a practical message that is important to convey.

When you and I are disagreeing over the meaning of a word or the value of a word having meaning at all, part of my position is usually based on my practical need for a word to mean something useful. By useful, I mean that I can put that meaning to some use, potentially including uses that we both agree are desirable.

Whether we are talking about a verb or a noun or an adjective, the purpose of any word is to differentiate between things that match that word and things that don’t match that word. “Rain” means liquid water naturally falling from the sky, and situations that aren’t liquid water naturally falling from the sky aren’t “rain”. “Jump” means propelling yourself into the air, and actions that don’t propel yourself into the air aren’t “jumping”. When I say it is or isn’t raining, or that I did or did not jump, those definitions help you understand the state of reality that I am describing. If you want or need information about whether liquid water is naturally falling from the sky then our shared definition of “rain” allows me to convey that information to you using that word.

The first category of useless definitions are definitions based on things that haven’t happened yet or can’t be known yet. If I were to say that “rain” only includes falling water that reaches the ground, and then we went to the top of a tall building and observed water falling from the sky, we would be unable to classify it as “rain” or “not rain” because we don’t know yet whether it will reach the ground or evaporate/freeze before it gets there. That definition of “rain” would be useless to us. Doubly so, as not only could we not accurately describe our observation, but someone else using a more common definition might tell us that it’s rain and we make a mistaken conclusion about the water reaching the ground below us. This category includes definitions of the word “consent” or “rape” that are subjective or non-deterministic. If your definition of those words leads to “you can’t know whether that sexual act you’re engaging in right now is consensual or rape” being a valid statement, then your definition is useless to me. And, again, I mean that in the most literal sense. There is no use to which I can put that definition, even in pursuit of our [presumably] shared goal of avoiding rape. Your definition actually reduces my ability to communicate by eliminating or making ambiguous part of my vocabulary.

The second category of useless definitions include words that mean exactly and only what the speaker wants them to mean. This category frequently includes words like “art” or “artist”, “pornography”, “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad”, and “enterprise”. More controversially, and the inspiration for this paragraph, it includes trans-inclusive definitions of “man” and “woman”. While I am supportive of these definitions, that does not stop me from categorizing them as useless. As these definitions are adopted, the information content of the words drops towards zero. When you tell me “Pat is a man”, do you intend to convey any information via this statement? If so, you must be using some definition of “man” other than the circular one of “anyone who identifies as a man”. If not, why say it at all?

I am not immediately seeking comment here, although it is welcome. The primary purpose of this note is for me to link to when this concept comes up in future discussions.

You: "Murder is bad because the sky is blue."
Me: "What you just said is wrong."
You: "Why do you think murder is good?"
Me: ...

You: "Murder is bad because the sky is orange."
Me: "The sky is not orange."
You: "Why do you think murder is good?"
Me: ...

These two examples represent a fundamental failure of communication that I'm trying to figure out how to address when and where it happens, without confusing people further. It took me a long time to figure out that a lot of people can't tell the difference between me contradicting their argument or premise and me contradicting their conclusion. Since that dawned on me, I've only ever managed to successfully navigate this conversational space by accident. Starting from "Murder is bad because the sky is [blue/orange]", how do I get to a position where you understand the following things:

1) I agree with you that the sky is blue / I disagree with you that the sky is orange.

2) I agree with you that murder is bad.

3) The statements I have made that do not include the word "murder" are not about murder

Anecdotally, I can report that simply breaking the statement apart into those components does not have the desired effect. If anything, using more words in such a straightforward way makes things worse. Actually naming the logical fallacy being employed, more so. So, I am looking for different words to use.