It's very difficult to get to the bottom of things if all we're doing is working with people's interpretation of the words rather than the actual words themselves.
I'm having trouble with this concept. All communication is about interpretation and all of us bring our own filters to every communication we engage in. Words in and of themselves have no meaning, other than what those who use them give to them. A basic agreement as to what words mean allows us to communicate on at least the most rudimentary level but the less concrete the word itself is, the greater the chances for multiple interpretations of it.
That is basically the root of the issue that has produced the various discussions of late: individual interpretations of a word that we all share as one of our self-defined labels.
When I'm told by someone with whom I communicate that my interpretation of the words being used isn't the same as theirs, I try to reframe my
communication to meet them as best I can or we no longer have a conversation, we have a monologue.
Expecting another to automatically adapt to my frame of reference is disrespectful at worst and unproductive at best.
To engage in satisfying discussions, that needs to be a two way street.
When the communication is occuring with someone for whom there are deeply connected feelings, it's much easier to acknowledge our different frames of reference and to take great care that we both express ourselves as clearly as possible and attempt to explain what our words mean to us
since there is much on the line. We don't expect the other to change their interpretations, but to try to understand and accept the differences so we can reach a mutually beneficial discourse.
Extending a similar process to all communications would benefit many a discussion.