Your position makes sense if you are highly interested in the generic meaning of the word, and not at all interested in the strategic meaning of the word. After all, language is what we make it, and if people decide to make language in such a way that “isolating” is never used in the strategic sense, then of course it would be insanely confusing for someone to insist on using it in that sense, especially in a public accusation of all places. However I think many people, probably even most people, would be interested in the strategic meaning of the word, and not the generic meaning of the word.
No, it isn’t. If you make an accusation about and to third parties, it’s those third parties’ understanding of language that is relevant—not what “we” understand.
“I have a different meaning of those words I put in the accusation because language is what we make it” is dishonest.
Sure, but since both my and Ozy’s reaction to the counterarguments about isolation was “it sure seems like there could still have been some isolation”, there are at least some third-parties who understood the strategic sense. I’m not making the argument that Alice and Ben can use the word however they want, I’m making the argument that lots of people understand this.
Maybe we could test it. Like we could give some people a story of some cult which insists that some victims spend all their time interacting with cult members, and then ask the people whether the cult isolated those victims (as would be implied if people use the strategic meaning of the word) or did the opposite of isolating them (as would be implied if people used the generic meaning of the word).
I think calling this a strategic meaning is not that helpful. I would say the issue is that “isolated” is underspecified. It’s not like there was a fully fleshed out account that was then backtracked on, it’s more like: what was the isolation? were they isolated from literally everyone who wasn’t Kat, Emerson or Drew, or were they isolated /pushed to isolate more than is healthy from people they didn’t need to have their ‘career face’ on for? We now know the latter was meant, but either was plausible.
It’s unhelpful when it comes to just explaining the meaning of “isolation” as that is better communicated by something like Ozy’s description, or in various other ways.
However, I think at least in theory it can be helpful for understanding where to focus one’s attention in the case of community drama like this, including for other questions than just the “isolation” one. Maybe not in practice because I haven’t gone in depth for explaining what I mean by “strategic” though.
Because she specifically said she was isolated from them. She wasn’t. And now we’re supposed to believe that she really meant a form of isolation where those don’t count, even though she explicitly said they count.
Your position makes sense if you are highly interested in the generic meaning of the word, and not at all interested in the strategic meaning of the word. After all, language is what we make it, and if people decide to make language in such a way that “isolating” is never used in the strategic sense, then of course it would be insanely confusing for someone to insist on using it in that sense, especially in a public accusation of all places. However I think many people, probably even most people, would be interested in the strategic meaning of the word, and not the generic meaning of the word.
No, it isn’t. If you make an accusation about and to third parties, it’s those third parties’ understanding of language that is relevant—not what “we” understand.
“I have a different meaning of those words I put in the accusation because language is what we make it” is dishonest.
Sure, but since both my and Ozy’s reaction to the counterarguments about isolation was “it sure seems like there could still have been some isolation”, there are at least some third-parties who understood the strategic sense. I’m not making the argument that Alice and Ben can use the word however they want, I’m making the argument that lots of people understand this.
Maybe we could test it. Like we could give some people a story of some cult which insists that some victims spend all their time interacting with cult members, and then ask the people whether the cult isolated those victims (as would be implied if people use the strategic meaning of the word) or did the opposite of isolating them (as would be implied if people used the generic meaning of the word).
I think calling this a strategic meaning is not that helpful. I would say the issue is that “isolated” is underspecified. It’s not like there was a fully fleshed out account that was then backtracked on, it’s more like: what was the isolation? were they isolated from literally everyone who wasn’t Kat, Emerson or Drew, or were they isolated /pushed to isolate more than is healthy from people they didn’t need to have their ‘career face’ on for? We now know the latter was meant, but either was plausible.
It’s unhelpful when it comes to just explaining the meaning of “isolation” as that is better communicated by something like Ozy’s description, or in various other ways.
However, I think at least in theory it can be helpful for understanding where to focus one’s attention in the case of community drama like this, including for other questions than just the “isolation” one. Maybe not in practice because I haven’t gone in depth for explaining what I mean by “strategic” though.
I gave a quote from Ben’s post above.
She specified families, romantic partners, and locals.
Maybe this doesn’t count as fully fleshed, but the new interpretation certainly backtracks on these.
How does it backtrack?
Because she specifically said she was isolated from them. She wasn’t. And now we’re supposed to believe that she really meant a form of isolation where those don’t count, even though she explicitly said they count.