Questions for those who don't believe in God

[Mariner]

In linguistic terms, JAZ is completely right--language drifts, and the meaning of words can drift so far that they can end up meaning almost the opposite of where they started out. When you say something was "awfully good," there was in fact nothing awful about it--quite the opposite. Nothing can be done to stop the drift, really, and it's hardly liberals' fault that this paricular word--homophobia--drifted.

BUT, I think I can understand the concern of conservatives who dislike the term "homophobia" being used in its now common sense of homopprobrium (a neologism I really like, Abbey Normal). Originally, I believe it referred to a pathological fear of gay people. It has now drifted to mean any general disapproval of gay people. The problem, from the homopprobe's point of view, is that the element "phobia" is pejorative, since a phobia is a mental illness, and suggests a judgement of the homophobe.

This is indeed perhaps unfair to homopprobes, and I can see why they would argue to restrict the word to its original meaning.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In linguistic terms, JAZ is completely right--language drifts, and the meaning of words can drift so far that they can end up meaning almost the opposite of where they started out. When you say something was "awfully good," there was in fact nothing awful about it--quite the opposite. Nothing can be done to stop the drift, really, and it's hardly liberals' fault that this paricular word--homophobia--drifted.

BUT, I think I can understand the concern of conservatives who dislike the term "homophobia" being used in its now common sense of homopprobrium (a neologism I really like, Abbey Normal). Originally, I believe it referred to a pathological fear of gay people. It has now drifted to mean any general disapproval of gay people. The problem, from the homopprobe's point of view, is that the element "phobia" is pejorative, since a phobia is a mental illness, and suggests a judgement of the homophobe.

This is indeed perhaps unfair to homopprobes, and I can see why they would argue to restrict the word to its original meaning.

Mariner.

You're semi-reasonable here, for once, Mariner. You credit the discordance between signifier and signified to unavoidable natural "language drift". While I agree this phenomenon exists, I credit THIS mismatch to an INTENTIONAL creation of a word embued with judgement. And Homopprobrium does rock, doesn't it? Thanks again, abbey.

 

[jAZ]

In linguistic terms, JAZ is completely right--language drifts, and the meaning of words can drift so far that they can end up meaning almost the opposite of where they started out. When you say something was "awfully good," there was in fact nothing awful about it--quite the opposite. Nothing can be done to stop the drift, really, and it's hardly liberals' fault that this particular word--homophobia--drifted.

BUT, I think I can understand the concern of conservatives who dislike the term "homophobia" being used in its now common sense of homopprobrium (a neologism I really like, Abbey Normal). Originally, I believe it referred to a pathological fear of gay people. It has now drifted to mean any general disapproval of gay people. The problem, from the homopprobe's point of view, is that the element "phobia" is pejorative, since a phobia is a mental illness, and suggests a judgment of the homophobe.

This is indeed perhaps unfair to homopprobes, and I can see why they would argue to restrict the word to its original meaning.

Mariner.

Great post.

I agree 100% with it.

I too understand the objection to the term. It's unhelpful to their cause, and maybe unfairly so in a respect.

I continue to object to the notion that the broadened language is a deliberate and tactical choice on the part of the pro-gay-rights movement. It's a natural phenomenon in our world. The evidence is the gradual evolution of the meaning from it's medical origins in the 60's.

There are lots of examples of marketing spin and abusive application of duplicitous language by this current Republican administration. Such activity isn't even remotely liberal in it's origin.

It's a joke of colossal proportion to suggest otherwise.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Great post.


There are lots of examples of marketing spin and abusive application of duplicitous language by this current Republican administration..

Name one.

 

[jAZ]

Name one.

WMD

 

[dmp]

WMD

Stupid.

 

[Abbey Normal]

You're semi-reasonable here, for once, Mariner. You credit the discordance between signifier and signified to unavoidable natural "language drift". While I agree this phenomenon exists, I credit THIS mismatch to an INTENTIONAL creation of a word embued with judgement. And Homopprobrium does rock, doesn't it? Thanks again, abbey.

 

[jAZ]

Stupid.

You misunderestimate Bush.

 

[Mariner]

That was a nice way of reframing the "inheritance tax," which has connotations of wealthy bluebloods passing on the Van Gogh and the Rolls to their children.

Framed as an inheritance tax, more people support it than when framed as a death tax, which suggests you're being robbed even as you die.

Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

That was a nice way of reframing the "inheritance tax," which has connotations of wealthy bluebloods passing on the Van Gogh and the Rolls to their children.

Framed as an inheritance tax, more people support it than when framed as a death tax, which suggests you're being robbed even as you die.

Mariner.

No matter what you call it, why should the government take a huge chunk out of your hard-earned cash just because you want to pass it on to the next generation?

In fact, two of the top three things needed to establish communism, according to Marx, were the elimination of inheritance and a progressive income tax.

 

[Hobbit]

WMD

*Buzz* Wrong!! The term, "Weapons of Mass Destruction," while popularized in the buildup to the Iraq war, has been around far longer.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

Source

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

Source

We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.

Source

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Source

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Letter to President Clinton. Source

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Source

Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.

Source

Quotes and links courtesy of glennbeck.com.

 

[jAZ]

*Buzz* Wrong!! The term, "Weapons of Mass Destruction," while popularized in the buildup to the Iraq war, has been around far longer.



Source



Source



Source



Source



Letter to President Clinton. Source



Source



Source

Quotes and links courtesy of glennbeck.com.

Yes, but Bush abused the term with a bait and switch.

He spoke of WMD and mushroom clouds suggesting the idea that WMD=Nuke. This was done to stir up the greatest fear of Iraq possible. In reality though, the only solid information about any "WMD" was that of Chemical Weapons.

I can't even believe I'm trying to disucss this topic with people who believe with certainty that Republican politicians don't abuse language in order to manipulate public opinion.

Is there an intellectually honest conservative poster anywhere around here? I am guessing they are just keeping quiet as to not be forced to pick my side over one of their own.

 

[jAZ]

No matter what you call it, why should the government take a huge chunk out of your hard-earned cash just because you want to pass it on to the next generation?

In fact, two of the top three things needed to establish communism, according to Marx, were the elimination of inheritance and a progressive income tax.

Diversion alert! Diversion alert!

"Passengers, this is your Capitan speaking. Everyone remain calm. We've encountered a little turbulence. I'll just pushed the emergency "anti-diversion" button and we will be right back on track momentarily.

 

[Annie]

Yes, but Bush abused the term with a bait and switch.

What did he mean differently, figuratively or literally from all those others?

 

[Annie]

Diversion alert! Diversion alert!

"Passengers, this is your Capitan speaking. Everyone remain calm. We've encountered a little turbulence. I'll just pushed the emergency "anti-diversion" button and we will be right back on track momentarily.

The above posted by someone arguing about WMD and Bush's use of language on the topic: Questions for those who don't believe in God.

Sheesh.

With that said, I guess I'll declare this hijacked and closed.