Daily Archive

   I would like to take this time to edify and hopefully illuminate those with access to my very small part of the blogging community.

Blogging community, if you care to listen please note that for future reference that if you intend to talk about a topic that you are unfamiliar with, or wish to actively criticize please recognize that looking up terminology you will be dealing with in a dictionary is not the endpoint of your commitment to honest discussion.

Defining your terms is important, but the level of detail present in most dictionaries is not sufficient to base a reasonable argument on.  An example of the problem described can be found in the wordpress reader, while browsing the feminism tag.  Every day I see posts that either start out with the dictionary definition of feminism in the topic sentence or maladroitly inserted into a body paragraph just before a long list of criticisms of said definition.

The problem, dear blogging community, is that arguing with dictionary definitions is about as useful licking a frozen fence post with your tongue.  Feminism (and other topics) are often rife with nuance and complexity that require a more careful reading to fully appreciate what they are about.

Would you feel okay in expressing your opinion based on what the dictionary says about a possibly esoteric topic such as:

Quantum Mechanics? 
noun, Physics.
1.
a theory of the mechanics of atoms, molecules, and other physical systems that are subject to the uncertainty principle.
Abbreviation: QM.

Huh, fascinating stuff eh?  Did you see about part about the many types of quarks?  How about the double-slit experiment?  Quantum tunnelling behaviours that are associated with electrons?

noun.
1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

…is somehow going to give them enough insight to intelligently comment on Feminism in a meaningful way?  My new goto method for jarring people out of their sullen stolidity is linking to a poignantly concise, accessible piece by bell hooks called Understanding Patriarchy.

Of course, some choose not to look farther than the meanings of words that are easy and convenient for them and their ‘arguments’.  Then other methodology must be used, including the neigh-terrible Red Pen of Justice in the most serious cases of cranial-rectal inversion.

One of the best methods for avoiding various peoples RPOJ’s is using the dictionary, coupled with other resources such as Wikipedia to further flesh out the context of complex topics that one might wish to speak on.  You’ll still get your ass handed to you by those possessing specialist knowledge, but you will avoid the eye-role and exasperated sighs of those who must yet *again* give the 101 level context necessary to properly frame a discussion.