Perhaps, but unfolding what you mean by the high-conflict term into more concrete terms would help people who have different subjective impressions understand meanings. My hunch is that the thing you’re concerned about is a communication patterns issue, but if so, it seems to me that using the word should itself likely be classified as an instance of the thing you’re criticizing by the description which identifies the pattern-to-avoid separate from the issues it’s about.
Agree there as well. The only general point I want to transmit is, I personally try to suck all commonly-used political wording out of my phrasings regardless of which subgroup of opinion I’m describing, and I find that this avoids activating shortcuts in people’s reasoning that skip past the useful higher-level thinking I want to engage. I claim others will also find this effective at making political discussions go better; it doesn’t require never speaking of a group, it just requires creative thinking to name the group using a currently-unused name every time. (It also tends to be annoying effort, so I wouldn’t prescribe talking this way.)
(often, this forces me to describe a pattern rather than naming a specific group currently exhibiting the pattern; if we disagree on who exhibits the pattern how much, then we disagree, but it doesn’t mean asserting it’s not more common in some groups than others; it just means referring to the groups by-the-handle-of the behavior pattern itself. this allows people to include themselves in or exclude themselves from the behavior-pattern-selected group according to whether they agree with the behavior pattern, rather than whether they agree with the group known for exhibiting it.)
Avoiding fnords isn’t a universal rule. Objectivity is one property that writing can have that trade-offs against other elements.
It in fact destroys objectivity. If you want to model-build usefully, please be specific rather than invoking words that just mean “conflict”.
Sometimes it makes sense to, you know, actually talk about things that are subjective.
That said, I limit how subjective I go in this post, attempting to be somewhat objective in light of a particular subjective stance.
Perhaps, but unfolding what you mean by the high-conflict term into more concrete terms would help people who have different subjective impressions understand meanings. My hunch is that the thing you’re concerned about is a communication patterns issue, but if so, it seems to me that using the word should itself likely be classified as an instance of the thing you’re criticizing by the description which identifies the pattern-to-avoid separate from the issues it’s about.
Both-siding is often pragmatically useful, but sometimes we need to be able to step outside of this.
Agree there as well. The only general point I want to transmit is, I personally try to suck all commonly-used political wording out of my phrasings regardless of which subgroup of opinion I’m describing, and I find that this avoids activating shortcuts in people’s reasoning that skip past the useful higher-level thinking I want to engage. I claim others will also find this effective at making political discussions go better; it doesn’t require never speaking of a group, it just requires creative thinking to name the group using a currently-unused name every time. (It also tends to be annoying effort, so I wouldn’t prescribe talking this way.)
(often, this forces me to describe a pattern rather than naming a specific group currently exhibiting the pattern; if we disagree on who exhibits the pattern how much, then we disagree, but it doesn’t mean asserting it’s not more common in some groups than others; it just means referring to the groups by-the-handle-of the behavior pattern itself. this allows people to include themselves in or exclude themselves from the behavior-pattern-selected group according to whether they agree with the behavior pattern, rather than whether they agree with the group known for exhibiting it.)