Bishop149 wrote: ↑Wed, 3. Apr 19, 11:02
This is that American ego-centrism again, you are assuming "everyone in the room" is either American or has a reasonable understanding of the eccentricities of American politics.
I put it to you that this is not always true, can not always be assumed and indeed is pretty likely not to be true in this very forum (although we do all seem more politically informed than I would guess is average).
It's a Trump Thread.
And, whether or not I like it, he's an American.
The subject at hand is an American Political Commentator. She is on an American Cable News Channel. She even speaks "American." I bet she even uses an American toothpaste and buys candy bars and "cookies" (COOKIES) that are likely made in America. Oh, and she primarily talks about American stuffs and when other Americans talk about her, they're generally Americans at the time they're talking about her.
Unusual, I know, to then suggest that words that rely on a colloquial American contextual understanding are more likely to be accurate descriptions... in this context.
I can acknowledge that it exists but I neither have to approve of it nor encourage it.
Ah, but that then depends upon what context one is going to enforce, right? If I say she's "Far Left" then maybe I'm saying she's driving on the wrong side of the road, like you guys do...
..What I primarily object to (and I suspect this is were we disagree) is when people start introducing such confusions into ACADEMIC terminology, such as the words we're discussing.
I agree. But, only up to the point that such an insistence prevents the continuance of effective communication and understanding. I tried to explain histamines to someone today. You're a biologist. You know what they are. You, in fact, have much better authoritarian knowledge of histamines than I do. If not, maybe you got robbed when you paid for your degree.
But, rest assured, I have confidence that you can offer a better textbook-accurate description of how and why the human body responds to some things with the production of "histamines." I was reduced to "baby talk" in order to make my point. Which, in the end wasn't entirely valid in this context, but my attempt at explanation was not instructional, but to illustrate a process using something I mistakenly thought a common person could readily understand. I was mistaken. (Faith in humanity lost, but regained a bit later I guess.)
See? I didn't have to give the person some biologically accurate concept of "histamines" to explain something. All I had to do was sufficiently, for their understanding, illustrate the mechanism being described, what was being tested for and how such tests were conducted. The "word" was something they were familiar with after it was reminded to them that "anti-histamine" actually has a basis for the inclusion of the word... histamine. And, thus, the concept of measuring a human being's body's reaction to the introduction of a substance was illustrated succesfully and, more importantly, practically and sufficiently for the purpose of the discussion. It doesn't matter one bit that histamines didn't have anything to do with what was being discussed, only that basic concept was understood.
..Why do you think academic circles are full of complex terminology and long fancy words? The person who coined the terminology for "inserting nucleic acids into a cell" could have called the process "Insertion" a nice simple pre-existing word that partially describes the process, but this is confusing, what are you inserting? In to what? So instead they coined a new word, they called it "transfection".
Now suppose I come along and decide to start using the word "transfection" to mean oh I dunno the lytic process by which a virus kills a cell . . . . well done me, I've just destroyed the purpose of that word.
And, this is exactly why I pointed out that you have conversations with fellow knowledgeable professionals in your field that have clear, concise, understanding of the words and terminology used in your profession. Remember that? There ya go. That is one of the components of the definition of a "Profession." No foolin'. One of the components of identifying whether or not something is truly a "Profession" is whether or not they have special words for stuffs...
You won't be likely to find any true Profession that doesn't have special words for stuffs. That Profession's understanding of those words used in an appropriate professional context will be markedly different than a non-professional understanding. At the very least, it will be different and much less well comprehended in full by those without professional induction.
I doubly object to it if the person doing the redefining is doing it very deliberately in order to satisfy an agenda to distort meaning. To try and lead people into thinking something that isn't true, such as "Bernie Sanders is a Communist"
I agree completely. Further, the authority and motivation of such people has to be called into question when those observing such a thing are aware the commentator truly knows what that word means. "Joe the Plumber" may be able to call Bernie Sanders a communist. But, I understand that he's not using a textbook definition for that word. But, if a "journalist" does that or a truly schooled politician does that? That's a blatant misuse of the word.
..I sure as hell think that Tucker Carlson is .
He's a blowhard idgit that gets fed food pellets when he capers in front of the audience... Kind of hard to accept him as an authority on anything, really.
. . . I sure as hell think that McCarthyism corrupted such words in order to pursue an agenda of elimination.
It wasn't the definitions that caused the problem, it was the idea of "UnAmericanism" and the true whichhunt that surrounded the "Red Menace." Which was actually "a thing," but something that was blown far out of proportion and then used to promote an extremist agenda.
Finally I think that the reason that the US public perception of these words today is so skewed from reality is likely a direct result of your "Red Scares" and the surrounding government and media driven agenda.
It's simple. It's what anyone does when they arguing against something and they've decided they wish to overstate a point. It's not different than a kid accusing a parent of "You never let me do
anything." It's an appeal to extremes, a point at which the thing is so overstated it doesn't make sense. But, gosh, it sure sounds serious, right? It's not political error or purposeful misuse, it's dialectical misdirection...
"YOU'RE ALWAYS SAYIN' THAT STUFF!" <---- I type so much crap that eventually I'm going to say something twice. But, I also type so much crap that it's rare I say the same thing twice. Verbosity is neato.
The word for this kind of misinformation is: Propaganda . . . . . and IMO it or it's lasting effects should be encouraged, rather we should attempt to limit their impact and correct the bias they have introduced.
It's the appeal to emotion, the appeal of a countering extreme that can raise the idea of "drama." It's really not political. It's an argumentative tactic that, unfortunately, is easily adopted when emotional appeals concerning politics have been called for.
"Your a Capitalist and the means all you care about is money and that means all you care about is the rich making more money."
"No. I'm pro-capitalism because of the immense opportunity it opens up for enterprising hard-working individuals."
"WE WILL EAT TEH RICH U CAPITALIST PIG!"