i wish more people would actually first familiarise themselves w the subject they try talk about
just finished up watching a youtube vid last night and while i doubt I'd disagree w the creators politics , them throwing in certain jargon (like using "capitalistic" incorrectly) just made me wince.
I know im expecting too much from people to either know what they are talking about or not talk about it.
there's too many people who fancy themselves left wing cultural critics who use a grab bag of anarchist & marxist (sounding) phrases, often in an incoherent fashion.
as much as people want to rag on Orwell, he nailed his point in "on English writing" (think thats the title) where he decried some political writing as a way of obscuring meaning and also calling into question if even the writer knows what they mean/are saying
people, very egotistically, want to evade criticism, normally with a tedious "actually words change meaning over time" argument to defend utterly incorrect usage of terminology in sociology/philosophy/political science.
A thing that is decidedly not tolerated in fields like chemistry/mathematics/physics etc, and for good reasons. The importance of correct use of terms is to facilitate the communication of *meaning*. insisting on idiosyncrasies should have you written off as a crank.
see:
if you are in your mid 20's at least, you've likely seen in real time the term "emotional labour" be turned into "having to manage anyone else's emotions" in any context whatsoever (rather than in a workplace to maintain employment)
part of this is the cultural diffusion of ideas and is, functionally, impossible to *stop* but that's no excuse for people adopting a pseudo-academic tone in writing/video creation (etc) just misusing a term with a clear definition in the field of sociology
tenuous historical example, its my *suspicion* (investigation ongoing) that the term "chauvinism" became a shorthand for *male* chauvinism due to a process of:
English-speaking feminists in the early 1900's adapting the term "national chauvinism" into "male chauvinism" ("chauvinism" a synonym "supremacy") and then it becoming contracted in common usage till most people only think of the "male supremacist" meaning
[aside "Suprematism" is not a synonym of either but ive seen it used that way!]
this isn't nitpicking, if you are trying to tell me something and you aren't actually clear with what you are saying I will not understand. The whole purpose of fixed terms is to convey meaning in a *compressed* fashion.
terms used correctly significantly compress what would otherwise be vast amounts of text/speech. consider how much is contracted by, idk, "the frankfurt school's writing was primarily focused on the superstructure"
I'm never totally confident when discussing certain topics, lacking a formal education in them. I prefer to be cautious and try ensure I'm not promulgating a misunderstanding. I do not know how people around my age can confidently talk *utter nonsense* that is patently wrong to someone with even a glancing familiarity with the subject. not to mention some even deriving a living income from doing so!
and I think you should be happy to be wrong sometimes! someone caring enough to correct you, to guide you to a better understanding is kindness!
not to mention, its reassuring to *be wrong* and accept it because it means you are not walking around mistakenly believing that your every utterance and opinion is hard fact.
there is no shame in simple ignorance, only the wilful kind
I've named a particular behaviour "naive appraisal" for when a person, on encountering something, thinks they've readily understand it (and often come away with a common misconception)
play-by-play, this could be:
someone born into a culture with a liberal-conservative cultural hegemony read the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" in marxist writing
they dont know "proletariat" or just think something like "worker" (as they understand it) but know that "dictatorship" = bad