Feminism is not cultural imperialism, it is the bedrock of human rights.

I don't think the gif is from the movie and I was raised in New Brunswick, not Nova Scotia but this is my culture.

ALWAYS double check yer hole.

There are so many clever, scary, innovative scenes in this that I don't want to give away, but it's not just a grab bag of cinematic horror ideas strung together.

It sustains a steady escalation, gets you invested in its characters, and manages to draw in 500 years of the Korean historical trauma.

And it's all one thing. Communism is the writings of Marx and Engels and Lenin and Gramsci, but it's also the slogan "workers of the world unite" and the internationale. It's not like one fights the other. Telling every union worker they must read Marx before joining the discussion isn't helpful.

"politics should be discussed with definitional precision" is a view you can have, but I think it misses the point that reducing complexity has utility, too. Most people discuss things with a level of complexity they are comfortable with, and most of those discussions increase understanding.

I think there are dangers in getting too definitional, and dangers in reducing complexity, but I think, crucially, we never have to make that choice. We take our place in the spectrum naturally, by discussing politics the way we would discuss anything else with friends, to convey meaning efficiently

In between, you have most people. I'm in there somewhere, and so are you. You're probably closer to a philosopher, and I'm probably closer to a rhetorician. We could have the exact same politics, and phrase the same things in different ways.

People don't really choose a level of precision, anyway. All political philosophy exists on a continuum of complexity. There are philosophers who work with quite precise definitions, and rhetoricians who simplify things to extremes to turn that philosophy into slogans you can march with.

In some ways getting definitional "what is 'rich'??" what is 'capitalism?' what is 'tax'? what is a 'public service'? what is 'sucking'? actually just derails the conversation, gets us talking about semantics, and prevents us from sharing the ideas we really want to share with each other.

Scholars and philosophers can chase definitional accuracy and make extremely detailed arguments. Most of us are on a Gary's Economics on YouTube level when discussing capitalism. If the rich own everything, that's going to suck. We should tax them and provide public services. Etc.

Also, I do think philosophy is important, even if it's not important *to me*, or that the average discussion should or must be doing philosophy.

I'm more concerned with building solidarity and spreading ideas that don't need a huge amount of definitional accuracy.

I think a LOT of our conversations are basically fine, but of course we do need to get more definitional sometimes around the blurry edges of that circle.

"Is the US a fascist state?"

I may answer yes, but you would be reasonable to ask what definition I am using. I'd look for an expert to quote.

Take a statement like, "The US is a capitalist society."

By 99% of people's definition of capitalism this is true.

Now try, "Soviet Russia was a capitalist society."

By 99% of people's definition of capitalism this is false.

We simply don't need more definitional accuracy here.

Likewise, if someone throws out a point that is way outside the circle, no problem. We know it's way out.

When we get to the edges of the blurry circle, this is where we ask clarifying questions of each other and become more definitional.

It's more than vibes but less than definitional consistency.

Imagine a blurry circle. Where does end? There is no clear line.

Most of the time the part we are referring to is not at the edge. It's in the middle. So it's not a problem.

Definitional clarity often comes at the expense of readability and conversational fluency, which is why no one likes reading philosophy textbooks, or talking to philosophers. It doesn't mean you're more correct, either. A vague idea can be true, just as a clearly defined one can be false.

We really don't operate with defined and stable shared definitions, tbh, but most of the time it is (legitimately!) not an issue.

There is no stable definition of sandwich, either, but interrogating it isn't necessarily until you start talking about rolling it and then we're like hold up