I'm generally a fan of "blurry" definitions where something can qualify as X if it fulfills a few of many criteria. I think trying to create hard rules around blurry areas like race and culture is fool's errand, and Scott does a great job laying out how overly strict definitions can go wrong.
- 79
- 10
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
When there are legal benefits, it probably is best for a strict definition. It's too open to corruption otherwise. But we can separate that from the social definition. Maybe someone doesn't qualify as a legal emo and get benefits if they don't attend a minimum of five concerts a year, but we can still let them in the social group if they fulfill all the other standards. Ideally, so would concepts like race.
More options
Context Copy link