Accuracy and Precision
[image error]
If you’re expecting clarity and accuracy in what people say, especially on the Internet, you’re in for a rude awakening.
Words have meaning. Let’s take “Dictator,” for instance. A dictator is a ruler with absolute power. Think of the root word “dictate”: A dictator dictates what is to be done, and it gets done. For a more nuts-and-bolts description of the term, think of a dictator as having the power to promulgate AND enforce laws, AND have sole control over the military and any other civil authorities, AND have the power to arrest, try, imprison, and execute anyone who disobeys.
A dictator would never voluntarily step down from power either.
Lastly, a dictator is usually but not always evil. This is a controversial statement, but one with the status of “Dictator” is not by definition evil. We’re used to it being so because of relatively recent world events, but if you’re into accuracy and clarity, these are the kinds of things that you have to parse if you want to be as precise as possible. In any event, I would argue that lots of people, even in America, the “Land of the Free,” would be more than happy if “their guy” was a dictator who retained absolute power until they died before power passed to the dictator’s hand-picked successor.
In light of this, whomever runs North Korea is a dictator in the technical sense. Based on what I know about Chinese politics, Xi Jinping is not a dictator in the absolute sense. Neither, from what I know about Russian politics, is Vladimir Putin. Neither, from what I know about Iranian politics, is Hassan Rouhani.
Neither is Donald Trump. Neither was Barack Obama. Neither was George W. Bush. Neither was Bill Clinton. Neither was George H.W. Bush. Neither was Ronald Reagan. Neither was . . .
In fact, even the U.S. presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Linconln who assumed wide powers, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of American citizens and confiscated their property, and even suspended habeas corpus, weren’t dictators in the technical sense.
This is but one example of a word that has been twisted beyond any recognizable or coherent meaning to be a stand in for “Someone I personally don’t like who does things I personally don’t like.”
The point isn’t about the term dictator though. The point is about accuracy and clarity, of knowing when you’re right about something and should stubbornly dig in or when you’re wrong and you should accept the light of truth through your illusions of falsehood.
If it feels as frustrating as beating your head against the wall to be a self-aware individual in the 21st century, that’s because it is. Seeking truth is a quixotic endeavor even in the best of times. In an era of chaos like we find ourselves in now, it’s almost insanity to try and not be insane.
We can’t even decide on what “Truth” is anymore, because truth depends on what one believes to be the fundamental nature of the universe and everything in it. The definitions of right and wrong, of good and evil, of beautiful and ugly, flow from this. But nowadays, ask 100 different people what is truth, and you’ll probably get 200 different answers.
But it’s still worth it. For every person who is aware of their biases and blindspots and can admit when they’re wrong and work towards correcting themselves, there will be one more person able to guide others after the inevitable collapse. Somebody will have to rebuild, and it would be nice if it isn’t some evil dictator.
I mean, a benevolent dictator would be preferable to an evil dictator. And just so you know, “benevolent” means “marked by or disposed to doing good.” Here we, once again, see why definitions matter, because first we had to define “Dictator,” and then we have to define “benevolent,” and now we have to define “good” . . . you see why this stuff matters?
My new book about Rush fandom, Dreamers & Misfits, is out now, and I’m VERY precise when writing about Rush.
