I don't use the "taboo" terminology, but I frequently ask people to operationalise their definitions in arguments. ("What specific steps would I go through to test whether the system is scalable or not?")

The first time I ask, people ignore it and/or don't understand it.

The second time I ask, people get uncomfortable because generally they haven't thought about what they mean to that level of detail, and they try to weasel out of it.

The third time I ask, it diverges. Some people give me a reasonable definition. Some people say "sorry that's not possible" and depending on the subject, I pause the argument at that point to do something else.

> The first time I ask, people ignore it and/or don't understand it.

What if this also happens the second, third and Nth time you try?

> The second time I ask, people get uncomfortable because generally they haven't thought about what they mean to that level of detail, and they try to weasel out of it.

Or maybe people decide to stay here, believing their subjective views to be good enough answer for such a question. Then what?

This is where it has paid for me to practise interpersona skills. Once I'm outside of the common situations every situation is unique and I have no general advice.

I don’t think the parent commenter’s intent was that the words be universally banned, but instead context-specific words banned for a specific conversation. It’s just trying to remove implicitly differing definitions.

Typically I just disengage myself from the topic (or the drama/tension that is brewing up) and start asking what people mean when they use a certain word.

We've somehow started arguing about optimisation, for example. Time to take a step back and ask what "optimisation" actually means.

In fact, me saying "let's step back a bit" is pretty much my go-to phrase for saying we've gone too far down a rabbit hole and we should come back up for air.

I don't think I would have much success trying to make certain words taboo. Much better to create a shared understanding of what something means instead of trying to avoid it.

I didn't know this was a thing that had a term either! I don't talk politics anymore except with folks that I explicitly know want to talk politics, but I frequently suggest that people shouldn't use a whole litany of terms in those discussions: right/left-wing, capitalist, socialist, liberal, conservative, communist, libertarian, fascist...so many people use these terms as short-hand for "stuff I really/don't like", and then project values and policies onto them.

Throw them out, talk about the issues, talk about your shared values, etc, and you'll quickly find that you agree with people a lot more than you realized.

I didn't want to mention politics, but "Critical Race Theory" is a prime example and should really be tabooed as a temporary exercise to aid understanding. So many discussions about it without people having a consistent understanding of what it means. I think they've even written laws regarding it without defining what it means. But, sadly, politics is rarely about understanding each other or reaching consensus.

> But, sadly, politics is rarely about understanding each other or reaching consensus

This made a recollection (possibly a lucid dream) about a country who has replaced an (implicit or explicit) adversarial system with one that starts by getting the parties to co-author a document on what they agree upon.

I think this is what our politics (organisational and the representative system alike) should try to implement

Totally agree. Many of these terms mean totally different things to different people. And sometimes contradictory things to the same person. Get rid of the labels and talk issues instead.

And I guess the same is true in the examples of tech discussions where people couldn't agree because "scaling" or "performance" meant different things to different people, because by the nature of their work, they focus on different issues.