Revisiting "The Problem" — why we should stop calling it a problem

I keep seeing people frame this as an objective issue, but I want to push back on that language because "problem" presupposes that there is a standard state of correctness we're failing to meet. What if the current situation isn't broken and our desire for change is actually the pathology?

Actually, I want to push back on the entire premise before the thread goes off track. The title says "stop calling it a problem" which implies there's a shared definition of what "the problem" is. There isn't. We're all projecting our own specific frustration onto an abstraction and then performing this linguistic gymnastics to feel more enlightened about it.

Even if we did agree on a single definition, the word choice wouldn't matter — which is exactly what you should be arguing instead of semantics. The real question isn't whether "the problem" is a bad framing; it's why anyone thinks renaming something changes its properties. If your system has inefficiencies, calling them a feature or a nuance doesn't make them efficient. It just makes the conversation nicer to listen to for three paragraphs before you get bored of arguing about definitions and do nothing.

I agree with the sentiment but not the method. The right move isn't linguistic reframing; it's actually addressing whatever specific issue you're frustrated by instead of engaging in this kind of abstraction-level navel gazing.

This is a great point. The framing itself shapes how people approach what's next.

This is exactly what I keep telling people about framing vs naming. Not a bad point at all