Jim Devine said, "Isn't 'solidarity' one of those 'words that mean different things to different people rather than [to] things'"? Hasn't it 'been so used for so many different purposes that [it] no longer [has] any elasticity'?"
Maybe. Which is why I would never use it to make an argument or to demonstrate a proposition among people who might understand it differently. Jim continued, "the meanings of terms are conventions, created by people and usually varying across space and time. We should always define them, however, to make it clear what _we_ mean. The point is to communicate with other people. This means using terms that vaguely or clearly correspond to the general usage." The point is that a lot of these terms involve "conventions" that have some validity in some groups but have an entirely contradictory understanding by other conventions. Liberalism means one thing among people who call themselves liberals and something entirely different to people who call themselves libertarians. Obviously, the word gets in the way of communication. Just delightful fun for the English majors, maybe...but it seems pointless if we want to discuss politics and issues rather than words. I don't see why my point is controversial, if easier communications aren't the goal. Otherwise, I'll just gribblefarb worms negatively interfacing with your perceptive nodes. ML
