On 5/14/05, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > me: >> Calling it "newspeak" misses the point. All good propaganda has > an element of (partial) truth. Simply avoiding the word "insurgency" > simply avoids substantive analysis. (BTW, the Bushies use much worse > terms; "insurgency," as I've said, is pretty harmless.) > > >> _of course_ language involves politics. But I wouldn't say that it > _is_ politics.<< > > Ian: > I didn't say avoid the term, I'm saying we should contest it, > replete with a counterdescription/explanation of what is going on that > points out that it's just another one of their lies. ...< > > especially since the term "insurgency" is so harmless (relatively > speaking), the main emphasis should be on the latter: e.g., "in the > same situation, wouldn't you be an insurgent, too?"
-------------------- The term is not friggin' harmless as it's integral to the Newspeak storytelling they're doing. You wouldn't want to suggest that we need not contest their use of the words legality or torture because those a harmless terms would you? Jeebus
