I was asked to make a post of my comment from this thread by u/JestyerAverageJoe

It's about how people use slightly different meanings of the same word to manipulate. I was asked to flesh it out a bit more, but I haven't thought past what is below, so perhaps people can add more examples, strategies to deal with this etc. below.

----

I think this is another example of manipulating language to score political points.

The word 'for' can mean 'to accommodate' or 'to benefit'. For example, 'most prisons are designed for men' means 'most prisons are designed to accommodate men' not 'most prisons are designed to benefit men'.

So the sentence "The modern world was designed by men for men" has an exploitable ambiguity. A dishonest person can start by stating that the world is designed to accommodate men and then seamlessly switch to arguing that the world is designed to benefit men without changing any of the words used.

The same thing happens with the word 'represent'. It can mean 'to be symbolic of' or 'to act on behalf of'. People arguing for more representation of minorities focus make the point that there need to be people in power that act on behalf of minorities. But then they switch meanings to argue that the people in power need to be symbolic of the population to support calls for affirmative action.