It’s not diluting the definition, it’s expanding the definition.
“Legally” just means words written on paper, words that can be changed with legislation.
Don’t get this twisted, the law isn’t some unchanging monolith just because modern governance has been at a standstill when it comes to legislation. There’s “legal” ways to expand the definition until what Big Bird is saying is the legal definition.
I would argue expanding the definition is important, because people need to see spending millions on stock buybacks while cutting wages and cutting jobs to all help boost the stock as the theft of value that it is.
Further, language evolves and if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s people who refuse to accept that the definition of words can grow and change. So spare me the pearl clutching over the “proper, legal definition.” This is solarpunk memes, not boringdystopia memes.
Things have meaning. In the process of expanding the meaning, the meaning is made less pointed. If it has less of a point, it becomes broad (or diluted). So to make the original point, one must find new words, since the original definition has been so watered down and broadened.
Once we can assume the “common person” is well versed in post structuralism, we can have that chat. Until then, I’m good with a pragmatic approach to linguistics.
The actual currently defined wage theft is already illegal. The law simply needs to be properly enforced.
While I agree with the substance of this post, that underpaying labor to funnel wealth to owners is wrong, that is currently not illegal. (Pro tip: it’s capitalism.)
Each of these two problems requires a vastly different solution. Conflating the two only makes it more difficult to solve either.
The definition of words can change, but you’ve made me notice: there’s something more insidious and dishonest potentially going on here.
“Name is definition” is not just making a linguistic association, which, as you say, can change across time and community.
It’s also saying, “when you heard name before, what the speaker meant was definition.” Which, in this case, can be a lie. That’s abuse of teaching authority.
Now that’s not the whole of it, and you have a point. Just you made me notice this aspect now.
Chiming in with those who want to keep the specific meaning of wage theft, to better address that already-egregious problem, how about a new name for this.
It’s not diluting the definition, it’s expanding the definition.
“Legally” just means words written on paper, words that can be changed with legislation.
Don’t get this twisted, the law isn’t some unchanging monolith just because modern governance has been at a standstill when it comes to legislation. There’s “legal” ways to expand the definition until what Big Bird is saying is the legal definition.
I would argue expanding the definition is important, because people need to see spending millions on stock buybacks while cutting wages and cutting jobs to all help boost the stock as the theft of value that it is.
Further, language evolves and if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s people who refuse to accept that the definition of words can grow and change. So spare me the pearl clutching over the “proper, legal definition.” This is solarpunk memes, not boringdystopia memes.
Things have meaning. In the process of expanding the meaning, the meaning is made less pointed. If it has less of a point, it becomes broad (or diluted). So to make the original point, one must find new words, since the original definition has been so watered down and broadened.
Go tell that to the likes of Baudrillard and Derrida.
Referencing people whose communication styles are notoriously difficult to understand for average people is not great support for your point.
Once we can assume the “common person” is well versed in post structuralism, we can have that chat. Until then, I’m good with a pragmatic approach to linguistics.
The actual currently defined wage theft is already illegal. The law simply needs to be properly enforced.
While I agree with the substance of this post, that underpaying labor to funnel wealth to owners is wrong, that is currently not illegal. (Pro tip: it’s capitalism.)
Each of these two problems requires a vastly different solution. Conflating the two only makes it more difficult to solve either.
The definition of words can change, but you’ve made me notice: there’s something more insidious and dishonest potentially going on here.
“Name is definition” is not just making a linguistic association, which, as you say, can change across time and community.
It’s also saying, “when you heard name before, what the speaker meant was definition.” Which, in this case, can be a lie. That’s abuse of teaching authority.
Now that’s not the whole of it, and you have a point. Just you made me notice this aspect now.
Chiming in with those who want to keep the specific meaning of wage theft, to better address that already-egregious problem, how about a new name for this.
Value theft. Or, Profit theft.