Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9104203" data-attributes="member: 177">And, we can hook that to the next segment to note a common conversational dynamic:You (generic) have a jargon, developed in criticism and used to promote a style of play, used in a conversation.Someone new enters the discussion.&nbsp; You try to explain the concepts.And the new person, not fully on board with the underlying criticism, disagrees with the jargon definitions, or finds notable gaps.Now, you have a choice:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The jargon becomes gatekeeping (&quot;Sorry, but this is what we mean, and that isn't up for debate.&nbsp; If you don't like it, you shouldn't take part in this discussion.&quot;), or</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The discussion becomes focused on the jargon and the underlying criticism, rather than the intended point.</li>
</ol>This will often arise because people who have taken on the desire to speak as &quot;technical experts&quot; are having a technical discussion in a public space.&nbsp; Most of the time, this is something technical experts avoid.&nbsp; Technical discussions typically happen in spaces devoted to them, which these open forums generally aren't.I think I mentioned in a previous conversation - Snarf raises a good point here.&nbsp; I just wanted to note that in rhetoric this is sometimes referred to as the more prosaic, &quot;Equivocation&quot; - using a term with more than one meaning without being clear about which meaning is intended at a given time.&nbsp; Eliding from one to the other can generate fallacious arguments.One way to avoid this is to make sure your jargon term is differentiated from natural language.&nbsp; Instead of referring to &quot;skilled play&quot;, for example, you can refer to &quot;Gygaxian skilled play,&quot; and remove the ambiguity, while opening up the jargon to other forms of skilled play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9104203, member: 177"] And, we can hook that to the next segment to note a common conversational dynamic: You (generic) have a jargon, developed in criticism and used to promote a style of play, used in a conversation. Someone new enters the discussion. You try to explain the concepts. And the new person, not fully on board with the underlying criticism, [I]disagrees[/I] with the jargon definitions, or finds notable gaps. Now, you have a choice: [LIST=1] [*]The jargon becomes gatekeeping ("Sorry, but this is what we mean, and that isn't up for debate. If you don't like it, you shouldn't take part in this discussion."), or [*]The discussion becomes focused on the jargon and the underlying criticism, rather than the intended point. [/LIST] This will often arise because people who have taken on the desire to speak as "technical experts" are having a technical discussion in a public space. Most of the time, this is something technical experts avoid. Technical discussions typically happen in spaces devoted to them, which these open forums generally aren't. I think I mentioned in a previous conversation - Snarf raises a good point here. I just wanted to note that in rhetoric this is sometimes referred to as the more prosaic, "Equivocation" - using a term with more than one meaning without being clear about which meaning is intended at a given time. Eliding from one to the other can generate fallacious arguments. One way to avoid this is to make sure your jargon term is differentiated from natural language. Instead of referring to "skilled play", for example, you can refer to "[I]Gygaxian[/I] skilled play," and remove the ambiguity, while opening up the jargon to other forms of skilled play. [/QUOTE]

Verification