![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's been a whie since I did a big post but one of my pet gripes appeared again recently - manipulative word misuse.
You know for certain that the semantic association of the word "terrorism" has been warped beyond both rationality and recovery when Tom DeLay describes the Terri Schiavo tube-removal as "medical terrorism". I'm not commenting on the case (directly) but the use of this word is as telling as it is incorrect and as incorrect as it objectionable.
Here's some other word uses that I've found surprising
When did "protestors" automatically become "terrorists"?
For example, Guy Fawkes was part of a group of conspirators who plotted to blow up parliament (and hence the king) in England in objection to intolerance to Catholics under the reign of James I. Historically these were called protestors - violent conspiratorial ones, sure, but their target is as clear as their political stance. Today they would be called terrorists and instantly gain a label that defines them (in our current semantic association) as 'freedom-hating' menaces to all that is good thus blocking out any voice they may have for their cause or the importance of any concerns they had. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was an act of terrorism due to its indirect attack on the government being objected to, those fighting in Iraq against allied forces are protestors, enemy militia and many other things but unless they are trying to force political change through public intimidation and indirect attack they are not actually terrorists. The same goes for all sorts of other targeted enemies. They can't just be political enemies anymore because that sounds like a distant government problem - terrorists however kill ordinary folk, spread fear and are a much easier missile-targeting pill to swallow.
When did "those who object to the bush administration" become "terrorists"?
This is actually linked to another recently misunderstood word - patriot. I thought being a patriot was believing in things and doing things because they were for the benefit of the nation (the land of one's fathers) but it seems that the preferred useage of "patriot" is "person who blindly supports government policy loosely based on the idea that supporting your country is a good thing". The oh-so-ironically named Patriot Act however not only threatens the kind of rights patriots are supposed to stand for but it is borne out of a presumption that those who are not in support of the policies of the current administration are against them where protestors and objectors are automatically un-patriots. Then the patriot act can be used to lock them up, ignoring the constitutional rights established by the founding fathers (where is the patriotism in that?) without due process on the potentially presumptuous notion that they are "terrorists". (I'm not referring to specific cases here but I am referring to a memetic structure where one thing seems like a good idea so all the things that link to it are also interpreted as good ideas and those that oppose the meme are bad in a doubleplus ungood sort of way)
When did "those not of the religious far right" become "terrorists"?
I can only hope (and maybe even *gasp* pray) that this isn't becoming true. The word "terrorist" has been stretched enough and misapplied enough already but, as was true in the reign of James I, it's hard to keep religion out of things.
You know for certain that the semantic association of the word "terrorism" has been warped beyond both rationality and recovery when Tom DeLay describes the Terri Schiavo tube-removal as "medical terrorism". I'm not commenting on the case (directly) but the use of this word is as telling as it is incorrect and as incorrect as it objectionable.
Here's some other word uses that I've found surprising
When did "protestors" automatically become "terrorists"?
For example, Guy Fawkes was part of a group of conspirators who plotted to blow up parliament (and hence the king) in England in objection to intolerance to Catholics under the reign of James I. Historically these were called protestors - violent conspiratorial ones, sure, but their target is as clear as their political stance. Today they would be called terrorists and instantly gain a label that defines them (in our current semantic association) as 'freedom-hating' menaces to all that is good thus blocking out any voice they may have for their cause or the importance of any concerns they had. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was an act of terrorism due to its indirect attack on the government being objected to, those fighting in Iraq against allied forces are protestors, enemy militia and many other things but unless they are trying to force political change through public intimidation and indirect attack they are not actually terrorists. The same goes for all sorts of other targeted enemies. They can't just be political enemies anymore because that sounds like a distant government problem - terrorists however kill ordinary folk, spread fear and are a much easier missile-targeting pill to swallow.
When did "those who object to the bush administration" become "terrorists"?
This is actually linked to another recently misunderstood word - patriot. I thought being a patriot was believing in things and doing things because they were for the benefit of the nation (the land of one's fathers) but it seems that the preferred useage of "patriot" is "person who blindly supports government policy loosely based on the idea that supporting your country is a good thing". The oh-so-ironically named Patriot Act however not only threatens the kind of rights patriots are supposed to stand for but it is borne out of a presumption that those who are not in support of the policies of the current administration are against them where protestors and objectors are automatically un-patriots. Then the patriot act can be used to lock them up, ignoring the constitutional rights established by the founding fathers (where is the patriotism in that?) without due process on the potentially presumptuous notion that they are "terrorists". (I'm not referring to specific cases here but I am referring to a memetic structure where one thing seems like a good idea so all the things that link to it are also interpreted as good ideas and those that oppose the meme are bad in a doubleplus ungood sort of way)
When did "those not of the religious far right" become "terrorists"?
I can only hope (and maybe even *gasp* pray) that this isn't becoming true. The word "terrorist" has been stretched enough and misapplied enough already but, as was true in the reign of James I, it's hard to keep religion out of things.
