I mean, my opening point was that “it depends on what you mean by coexist.”
The “coexist” language has long centered around religious divides, where the intent was literally, “don’t kill each other.”
Yeah, sure, you could say that you’re “refusing to coexist with your racist cousin this year at Thanksgiving,” but it’s not like he ceases to exist. He still lives down the road. His kids still go to the same school your kids go to. It feels like a complete redefinition of the word “coexist” to me.
But I’ll agree, language follows usage. I just feel like I’m the one defending the traditional usage of “coexist” and you’re the one who’s slid the definition to something far softer than it has always been intended.
Interpreting the meaning of these words differently can lead to the ambiguous situation where someone with the intent to do so can paint this as a call for extremism and rise to violence.
And “I didn’t mean it like that” doesn’t really cut it in today’s weaponized social media environment.
I mean, my opening point was that “it depends on what you mean by coexist.”
The “coexist” language has long centered around religious divides, where the intent was literally, “don’t kill each other.”
Yeah, sure, you could say that you’re “refusing to coexist with your racist cousin this year at Thanksgiving,” but it’s not like he ceases to exist. He still lives down the road. His kids still go to the same school your kids go to. It feels like a complete redefinition of the word “coexist” to me.
But I’ll agree, language follows usage. I just feel like I’m the one defending the traditional usage of “coexist” and you’re the one who’s slid the definition to something far softer than it has always been intended.
You’re not wrong.
Interpreting the meaning of these words differently can lead to the ambiguous situation where someone with the intent to do so can paint this as a call for extremism and rise to violence. And “I didn’t mean it like that” doesn’t really cut it in today’s weaponized social media environment.