Introducing RR Glossary and Semantics – latest V6feb19

George Rebane

This post launches a new and deplorably tardy category in RR, one that will contain ready access to the definitions and extended meanings of terms, notions, and ideas discussed and debated in these pages.  I plan to make the glossary and semantics (G&S) available on two separate documents that can be downloaded as pdfs – initially we’ll start with just the Glossary.  Both will be ‘living documents’ in the sense that they will grow and be edited over time.  The new G&S category is found in the Category section presented in the right margin of RR.

Their content will be derived initially from culling the almost 3,000 posts that currently comprise RR over its 13-year life.  These definitions and semantics will primarily be mine.  However, I invite readers to submit contending definitions which may be included with their distinguishing labels.  The documents will of need be ‘versioned’ by date so that they can be unambiguously referenced in all future discussions and debates.

I also ask readers, who search RR for some past reference I have made to some idea or issue, if they would kindly let me know when such terms should be included in updated versions of the G&S.  This undertaking has been motivated from time to time by readers who either don’t know in which sense I use a previously defined/discussed word, or would like to contend the proper role for such a word.  In that sense I also lay myself open to criticism and critiques of consistency, which I welcome.

My propensity is to use what have been termed ‘operational definitions’.  These are definitions which are both non-circular - as are so many in today’s dictionaries - and to the maximum extent of direct application in the existential world.  (Judging from the work product of today’s dictionaries, I find the practice of the art and science of lexicography to be dismal.)  Ideally the definitions should be algorizable to the extent that an intelligent machine could apply them.  I believe that living languages should coin/adopt new labels to unambiguously refer to new ideas, things, places, actions, …, and nuances of old familiar collections of such things.  To me piling more meanings under the same label makes that label and its use ambiguous and an unabashed irritant.

The comment stream for this post will be restricted to definitions and semantics, and not allowed to dilute or disperse into prescriptive areas of whether some word/idea is good or bad or belongs in public policy.  While I welcome critical analyses of my semantics, and even some well thought out alternatives and/or references to other usage, I want to emphasize that in the end these definitions are mine, and I am responsible for their proper usage in the arguments and apologies I offer on these pages.  It should be understood, of course, that I strongly recommend others adopt as many of these definitions/semantics as they may find useful in their own communications.

The first issue (version) of G&S will have a starter list that includes definitions and pointers to the discussion and explication of the following terms.  The current version can be downloaded here - Download RR Glossary&Semantics_v190206

-    Algorithm, algorithmics -
-    Bastiat Triangle
-    Communist
-    Credo
-    Culture
-    Discriminate
-    End-timer
-    Equal Opportunity
-    Hero
-    Racist/racism
-    Raghead
-    Rights, privileges
-    Singularity
-    Socialist
-    System
-    System Science
-    Transcendent

Comments

[Russ Steele]

George,

You might want to define a liberal as one who preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
• creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
• augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
• rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

There is more that could be added, this is just a starting point for the discussion that should follow.

H/T to Dr. Rossiter and “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness”

[Todd Juvinall]

This should be fun. I see the Frisch (the closet racist?) oops, maybe I am not defining him correctly, is whining about his time out over here. It is no use to explain anything to his closed mind but good luck.

[George Rebane]

RussS 858am - thanks for that expansion. The updated G&S is already a work-in-progress (WIP), and I'll definitely see how those points will fit into the overall definition as I use it here.

ToddJ 858am - (you both must have hit the send key simultaneously, which is why we also include the name) I hope that you and fellow commenters add candidate words to the G&S; words that SHOULD be included because of their frequent use, and not just words that COULD be included for the hell of it.

[TomKenworth]

You need a category for "Birtherism and other Crackpot Ideas."

[George Rebane]

TomK 1039pm - so noted, thanks.

[Ryan Mount]

Can we also add gin?

Noun. A drink when consumed, makes participants tend to agree with Mr. Rebane. (not sure about Greg, but I'd be happy to buy him a around to see what happens).

Verb (to gin): the action of buying drinks for people you might otherwise disagree with.

I'd also like to add demand-side econ and supply-side econ.

[George Rebane]

RyanM 551pm - Now you tell me; I didn't know it was that easy, else ...

[Ryan Mount]

Gin was an effective tool during the Reformation to keep the huddled masses in check. Well, at least they could tell who the rebel rousers were.

We can experiment on Doug with a couple of rounds.

[TomKenworth]

Works great on me, but more than two and after November, you'll have to take me to the hospital and try out Romney's, new, "OhBlameYouCare Health Plan," and I don't think I'll be able to afford it.