Talk:cut through the jargon

RFD discussion: May–July 2020
SOP: you can cut through many things ("cut through the bureaucracy", "cut through your primitive beliefs", "cut through the crap", etc.). However, I think our definition at ("to deal with an issue quickly") is inaccurate. Doesn't it mean ? Or ? Or ? PUC – 10:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. The commonality of cut through is that the speaker expresses their opinion that one can do without whatever it is they find burdensome, and their conviction that there is some way to avoid it. I suspect that the initial metaphor is that of “cutting through the thicket” with one’s machete, to open up a more expedient passage. It may be hard to find a verb that covers all applications; some others that come to mind are and . But used as in “cut through the thicket of local regulations” – which one cannot get rid of or skip, and should not ignore – deal with quickly/deftly/expertly is a better fit.  --Lambiam 12:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - TheDaveRoss  13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – Jberkel 14:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some searches: ; "cut through red tape" is the leader, followed by "cut through the crap". finds nothing. What does "cut through the jargon" really mean? Does it mean for an author to avoid using jargon or does it mean for a reader to successfully deal with excessive jargon used by an author or a group? For instance, "Unless you can cut through the jargon like a knife through butter, it is much better to deal through a broker (who can) instead of direct with a company" would suggest the latter (a reader). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, when you see something like "cut through X like a knife through butter", that's not quite the same as seeing "cut through X" alone, but more like an entire flowery metaphor of its own; I don't think that kind of thing supports this shorter form very well. Secondly, you ask what it means: it doesn't mean to avoid using jargon. It means that jargon exists and you skip the difficulties of the jargon and find your way to the real "meat" or meaning. Like cutting through an obstructing hedge to reach your destination. Equinox ◑ 10:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Therefore the current definition "refrain from using technical language" is completely wrong. I am certain about this. Equinox ◑ 10:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The point about the methaphor seems fair enough. Let's takes this: "This chapter attempts to cut through the jargon, to define the key terms that you really need to know about and to give you a working knowledge of other terms that you might hear"; what does the chapter do to the jargon? If it does not avoid using it, does the "cutting through" consist in clearly defining the terms used in the jargon? Or in "The Air Force stylistic conventions are similar, exhorting writers to “get to the point quickly” and to “cut through the jargon and passive voice, use the right word for the job and don't make [the readers] wade through an overgrown jungle [...]", would no the conventions exhort writers to avoid jargon and passive voice? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It means that there is a lot of jargon out there in the world, but "this chapter" is going to break through that difficult barrier of jargon, and explain things properly. It's not saying they are simply going to avoid it themselves. You cannot break through X if X isn't already there. Trust me. Equinox ◑ 10:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Naturally there is a minority of poor writers who will misuse a phrase or copy it without understanding. I doubt they are enough for us to add an extra sense. Equinox ◑ 10:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Very obvious delete for English native speakers. You can cut through anything of this sort. Equinox ◑ 10:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess you can, but what does it mean? And does it always mean the same thing? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Cut through X" (in this kind of construction) always means that X exists, and you are making your way through it forcefully, to get somewhere. Ignore the "refrain from using" at this particular entry, since it's wrong; see my other comment in this thread. Equinox ◑ 10:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)