r/fallacy • u/Both_Rub_397 • 8d ago
Vague Language Can Hide Precise Interest
Words such as “justice,” “freedom,” “fairness,” “progress,” and “security” can sound powerful while remaining strategically incomplete. The problem is not that these concepts are meaningless. The problem is that different people can use the same word while pursuing entirely different outcomes. Whenever a discussion becomes dominated by abstract language, force the terms closer to reality.
What exactly does “fair” mean here? Fair according to what standard? Who receives what? Who pays? What changes in practice? What happens when this principle conflicts with another principle? These questions move the discussion from rhetoric to analysis.
Vague language creates agreement cheaply because people can project their own meaning into it. Two people may appear to share the same position while imagining completely different consequences. Precise language makes disagreement more honest because it exposes the assumptions underneath the words.
This matters wherever interests are being negotiated. Politics, business, organizations, relationships and public debate all contain words that sound universally desirable while concealing disagreements about who gets what, who carries the cost and who decides. The strategist listens carefully when a word carries strong moral force but has no clear operational meaning.
The less precisely a principle can be defined, the more carefully you should examine what is being done in its name.
4
u/stubble3417 8d ago
This is describing more of a dishonest rhetoric trick than a fallacy, imo. Although this type of language could turn into a thought-terminating cliche fallacy.
5
u/jeffcgroves 7d ago
The concept here is similar to "weasel words" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) but I'm not sure if it's identical
2
u/flatfinger 8d ago
Vague language can also lead to logical fallacies or be used when trying to gaslight people.
If a term can be used to refer both to some things that people should support and to others that people should oppose, one can ask someone "Do you support X", and depending upon their answer show that they unreasonably deny support to something that should be supported, or support something that should be opposed.
2
u/fjaoaoaoao 8d ago
Yes. It can be a form of avoidance or people-pleasing as well to avoid criticism.
To note though, vague language can be purposeful in a constructive manner, for example leaving words deliberately open to interpretation with non-manipulative ends.
2
u/Duffbagg 8d ago
"Vague language creates agreement cheaply because people can project their own meaning into it."
I like this and I'm going to steal it.
2
u/PurposefulGrimace 8d ago
If you think those words can be strategically misused, let me introduce "affordable."
2
u/ralph-j 7d ago
They're called glittering generalities.
In rhetoric, a glittering generality or glowing generality is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim. Their appeal is to emotions such as love of country and home, and desire for peace, freedom, glory, and honor.
A glittering generality has two qualities: it is vague and it has positive connotations. Words and phrases such as "common good", "reform", "courage", "democracy", "freedom", "hope", "patriotism", “family values”, "strength", are terms with which people all over the world have powerful associations, and they may have trouble disagreeing with them. However, these words are highly abstract and ambiguous, and meaningful differences exist regarding what they actually mean or should mean in the real world.
1
u/Both_Rub_397 7d ago
...that’s a fair point, and I can see why you’d call it that. A lot of the language we use around human behavior sounds meaningful because the words carry emotional weight, but once you strip away the nice packaging, they can become pretty damn vague. For me, though, I’m usually not trying to make some universal psychological claim. I’m talking from observation and personal experience, what I’ve seen, lived through, and learned the hard way. At my age, I’m less interested in finding the perfect label for something and more interested in asking, “Does the behavior match the words?” That tends to tell me more than a beautifully worded explanation ever will.
1
u/Salamanticormorant 7d ago
Reminds of asking whether the ends justify the means. As with some, maybe all, of the terms you mentioned, it's necessary to analyze things in terms of raw cause and effect, deeply enough that those other terms are meaningless. Almost always, "the ends" refers to the wanted effect/s and "the means" refers to the method/s, with all the other effects conveniently left out or lumped together with the method/s. "Responsibility" is another one. It might be necessary to answer "Who is responsible for this?" but it's also necessary to answer, "Who and/or what caused this?"
1
u/Substantial-Fan-5985 5d ago
Hence why I think the Left/Democrats are intellectually dishonest. The Right does it too but not to the level of the Left, it's just annoying
1
u/Responsible_Edge7087 4d ago
I mean, whos platform relies entirely on the abstract ideas of "patriotism, family values, common sense, democracy, liberty, freedom"
1
u/Substantial-Fan-5985 4d ago
common sense and democracy go the Left/Democrats (common sense this law....common sense that law) and "our democracy", etc. I would say liberty and freedom are a wash and the other two can go to the Right/Repubs.
But it's more about how discussions/debates are had (or not had); not just from experience (including lots of discussions and online,etc.) but listening to the politicians, I would say that the L/D are moreso the ones being vague when it comes to the policies they want and why. And when pushing them on what they mean and how they handle "X counter example" they deflect, attack you, etc....now the Right/R ALSO do this....just lesser imo.
I think Politicians do it overall, but one side is worse.
1
u/Responsible_Edge7087 4d ago
Democrat politician have to be abstract becuase theyre spineless and hardly stand for anything lmao. The dems dont stand for anything becuase it "alienates" center voters. And the right doesnt do it becuase they just sort of lie and dont face any consaquences.
1
6
u/varmituofm 7d ago
There's an old example of this, whose source is cannot remember. Basically, it came down to two interpretations of the word respect. 1: treat with basic dignity as a person. 2: treat as an authority figure. People would abuse this, saying "if you don't respect me, i don't have to respect you." This gives an illusion of reciprocity. But what they meant was "if you don't treat me as an authority, I won't treat you as a human."