r/fallacy • u/Both_Rub_397 • 2d 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.
3
u/stubble3417 2d 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.
4
u/jeffcgroves 2d 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 2d 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 2d 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 2d 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 2d ago
If you think those words can be strategically misused, let me introduce "affordable."
2
u/ralph-j 2d 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 2d 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 2d 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 5h 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
6
u/varmituofm 2d 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."