![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI hear that a phrase coming into common parlance is a shift in the meaning of the word ‘rape’. Thus students coming out of a difficult exam might claim that they were ‘totally raped!’, or if beer is too expensive they might claim that they were ‘completely raped’ at the bar.
Language does this, but it’s interesting to watch how completely inappropriate but highly emotive terms are co-opted by people trying to make a point. What, of course, also happens is that the emotional impact of the word used is lessened by it’s use in inappropriate circumstances, thus making it less likely that people will take it so seriously in future - even when used in the correct context. A good example of this would the slanging wars of the 80’s, with Margaret Thatcher being called ‘Fascist!’ in the street, and Kinnock getting ‘Commie!’ from the other side of the fence. Of course, neither were deserving of these epithets, and the efforts of their opponents to tar them with a morally repugnant brush simply resulted in the words used having less emotional force in appropriate circumstances.
Now an accusation that’s been levelled at Dave Williams recently is “McCarthyism”, for his idea of linking up Livejournals whose contents he objects to. Naturally, what he’s doing isn’t McCarthyite at all, and the use of the word (which in itself displays a depressing ignorance of the actually history of the era) is simply an attempt by his opponents to paint him & his actions as blackly as possible.
It’s sad that this should be the case. McCarthyism destroyed the lives of hundreds of innocent people, demonstrably drove several dozen into suicide and remains a scar on the American conscience to this day. Dave Williams is setting up a public domain website. To link the two is not to blacken him, but to weaken the emotional impact of a sad period of history and to dishonour the names of those people who died or were ruined by the actions of Senator McCarthy.
If you disagree with Daves actions (which I do) then you achieve nothing by making baseless and inaccurate accusations, saving reducing by a little more the emotional power of a word that could be better used to describe other more pressing and damaging social ills. Rather you should develop a well reasoned and well-written argument to press your beliefs, then resort to throwing about the worst names you can think of as an alternative to effort or thought.
Language does this, but it’s interesting to watch how completely inappropriate but highly emotive terms are co-opted by people trying to make a point. What, of course, also happens is that the emotional impact of the word used is lessened by it’s use in inappropriate circumstances, thus making it less likely that people will take it so seriously in future - even when used in the correct context. A good example of this would the slanging wars of the 80’s, with Margaret Thatcher being called ‘Fascist!’ in the street, and Kinnock getting ‘Commie!’ from the other side of the fence. Of course, neither were deserving of these epithets, and the efforts of their opponents to tar them with a morally repugnant brush simply resulted in the words used having less emotional force in appropriate circumstances.
Now an accusation that’s been levelled at Dave Williams recently is “McCarthyism”, for his idea of linking up Livejournals whose contents he objects to. Naturally, what he’s doing isn’t McCarthyite at all, and the use of the word (which in itself displays a depressing ignorance of the actually history of the era) is simply an attempt by his opponents to paint him & his actions as blackly as possible.
It’s sad that this should be the case. McCarthyism destroyed the lives of hundreds of innocent people, demonstrably drove several dozen into suicide and remains a scar on the American conscience to this day. Dave Williams is setting up a public domain website. To link the two is not to blacken him, but to weaken the emotional impact of a sad period of history and to dishonour the names of those people who died or were ruined by the actions of Senator McCarthy.
If you disagree with Daves actions (which I do) then you achieve nothing by making baseless and inaccurate accusations, saving reducing by a little more the emotional power of a word that could be better used to describe other more pressing and damaging social ills. Rather you should develop a well reasoned and well-written argument to press your beliefs, then resort to throwing about the worst names you can think of as an alternative to effort or thought.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:01 am (UTC)"neither were deserving of these epithets, and the efforts of their opponents to tar them with a morally repugnant brush"
I would dispute the statement that being a 'commie' is morally repugnant.
So nyeh! ; P
Re:
Date: 2002-09-06 05:04 am (UTC)Why is it less repugnant than being a fascist?
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:23 am (UTC)Basically because I agree with many communist/socialist principals (not in its Stalinist etc. manifestations) and by contrast find facism and its standpoint 'repugnant' - I could barely speak after I came of of the spanish civil war exhibition for being so angry.
Is that a well-reasoned answer, probably not, but I should really be working atm.
Oh yes, and many members of my family were card-carrying members of the party and to a man and woman they are/were some of the best human beings out. So familial loyalty comes into it too I suppose.
Michael
Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 11:28 am (UTC)Communism believes in the fundamental good of human nature and that freed from the sociological effects of grubbing for food and (in some cases) the directives of religion we're basically all good chaps with each others best interests at heart working together for the betterment of the community/species as a whole.
What a lovely positive thing.
Fascism believes in human weakness and believes that only the exceptional are suited to lead (be that by race, adherence to fascist thought or something else.
In practice Fascist thinkers latch onto communist popularity to raise themselves to power as well as exploiting problems in democratic or other sytems and economies to present their ideas.
Communism is therefore preferable because it has a much more positive view of human nature and tries to produce the best from everyone, while expecting the same.
And as to Thatcher being Fascist...
Well.. to quote Planetary because this popped into my head the moment I saw this post...
"Jack always said it was difficult for us Americans to understand what it was really like here in the darkest parts of the eighties. We had a doddery old President who talked about the end of the world a little too often and was being run by the wrong people. But they had a Prime Minister who was genuinely mad.
You know there were even feminists and women's studies theorists who denied she was even really a woman anymore, she was so far out of her tree?
She wanted concentration camps for AIDs victims, wanted to eradicate homosexuality even as an abstract concept, made poor people choose between eating and keeping their vote, ran the most shameless vote-grabbing artificial war scam in fifty years... England was a scary place. No wonder it produced a scary culture."
Adolf was pretty much voted in remembe, so was Hitler. The adoration that people had/have for Hitler is reflected in the similar thoughtless praise given to Thatcher which flies in the face of all the authoritarian bitch did.
She was an elected dictator effectively, Blair has been similar in a lot of regards, the only reason he isn't so fantastically popular is because he's PM in a time of economic downslide rather than climb.
The way she 'dealt' with the miner's strike is enough evidence all on it's own.
Mrs T is one figure you can't demonise enough, even as a mad old deranged battleaxe she still scares the bejaysis out of me.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 01:52 pm (UTC)thank you grim, that'd be the well-reasoned answer as opposed to my lunch-time quick knee-jerk answer
and on the whole thatcher-reference thing, have you ever read a one-off comic called "St. Swithin's Day" ?
if not, I'll try and get my copy down from glasgow, I reckon you'd like it : )
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 04:08 pm (UTC)I mean look at her record Falklands quick war to get votes and popularity wave the british flag and all that...
Toxteth (sp?) riots and other such things changes done? no stuff for locals done? no what do they get a crappy park that is now full of drug dealers and muggers...
Miners strike... destroyed the unions in this country yeah unions were pushing their luck a bit but for christs sakes that reaction??
I could go on forever with her crap but won't you know it all as well as me.
By your definition she probably does almost count as fascist but I'm not quite sure on that - if some of her views had been put into practice more though I reckon she could be classed this way (I'm speaking as to her actions as PM rather than her as a person).
Strangely enough though we did have her to "thank" for the rise to political knowness of green policies (mainly due to britain looking good for emissions due to switch from coal to gas) and the ERM and our first attempt at the euro..
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:05 pm (UTC)Communism believes in the fundamental good of human nature and that freed from the sociological effects of grubbing for food and (in some cases) the directives of religion we're basically all good chaps with each others best interests at heart working together for the betterment of the community/species as a whole.
What a lovely positive thing.
[Liam]
I'm not so sure.
I thought, Communism which was based on Karl Marx's theories, believed in everyone being equal.
[GRIM]
Fascism believes in human weakness and believes that only the exceptional are suited to lead (be that by race, adherence to fascist thought or something else.
[Liam]
Is Fascism not a political stance based on national pride and one leader. In Hitler's case, it was him being chosen by God to lead Germany to providence with a racially pure nation.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:12 pm (UTC)not sure my head is screwed on right at 2am to do it.
Fascism isn't necessarily based on national pride, that's just the impression given by the samples of overtly fascist states we have, same as 'communist' states give a wrong impression of communism.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:47 pm (UTC)He wasn't exceptionally bright, not exceptionally physically fit. Yet because he waited until Hjalmar Schact had finally annoyed Hitler to the extent of removing him from the position of Minister for Economics, he got to lead Germany. He got to lead them economically. Allbeit shoddily and to the detriment of the jewish people without even getting into the Nazi beliefs. Which everyone knows they stole and no one EVER brings that up.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:50 pm (UTC)Fascism (and other rule based on elites) rewards croneyism to a very large extent allowing incompetents to hold positions because they do not harbour ambitions.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:58 pm (UTC)Surely that's also true of Communism?
Stalin would replace commanders on the Battle fields if they told him something he didn't like. Or if they hadn't beaten the Germans back. If I remember my history correctly.
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 07:13 pm (UTC)Stalin wasn't a communist.
In fact, there is little functional difference between post-revolution Communism and fascism.
Stalin basically wrecked any chance of a workers utopia because of greed and paranoia.
Stalin WASN'T a communist
Re: Why?
Date: 2002-09-06 07:42 pm (UTC)Stalin wasn't a communist. Yes. That much is true.
However he is the people's view of the communist; other than Marx and Mao Tse Tsung.
I'm thinking of adding Lenin to the list but he was a Bolshevik, right?
no subject
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:39 am (UTC)also no Che Guvar or valient struggle against the oppressive US beastie in the sixties.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:52 am (UTC)communism vs social-democrat or something else?
Michael
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 06:19 am (UTC)Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
Socialism is (a) more of a general caste than a specific system and (b) does not (necessarily) include a totaliterian state, or a complete abolition of private property.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 07:08 am (UTC)This is pretty good - you get a beg every 10 questions or so for a small pay pal donation but you can view without donating.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:17 am (UTC)As a side note I distinctly remember you having used the term 'Machivelian' with regard to IC and OOC plans and schemes. This is not an attempt to shove your argument back in your face but maybe its worth considering that you have committed the same acts with the same level of intention: ie using a known concept but assuming that the recipient of your words is aware that the degree is obviously reduced.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:36 am (UTC)Pronunciation: "ma-kE-&-'ve-lE-&n, -'vel-y&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Niccolo Machiavelli
Date: 1579
1 : of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism
2 : suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
- Machiavellian noun
Machiavellian is an adjective in common usage. Direct comparison to McCarthy, or use of McCarthyite refers much more specifically to the actions of Joe McCarthy. Somewhat amusingly, Merriam Webster defines McCarthyism as
Main Entry: Mc·Car·thy·ism
Pronunciation: m&-'kär-thE-"i-z&m also -'kär-tE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Joseph R. McCarthy
Date: 1950
: a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges
It's that "use of tactics involving personal attacks....basis of unsubstantiated charges" that amuses me. Because as much as I disagree with Dave Williams "idea" (I think it's unproductive and unlikely to acheive anything other than people disliking him), the one thing that it doesn't contain is unprovoked personal attacks...in fact, that has been the tactic used largely by those who disagree with him.
Who is McCarthy now?
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 05:55 am (UTC)Machiavelli
Date: 2002-09-06 06:02 am (UTC)Y'know, I hate to pull the history thing, but Machiavelli was actually very Republican, and his own beliefs can be predominantly defined from "The Discourses" he wrote on Republicanism. Nothing at all to do with the Prince.
The Prince was written as a way to get patronage and favour. Equte Machiavelli to Grim and the Prince to 'The Munchkin's Guide'. Neither follow their own writings, but both can see where others would, and the use of such a guide.
Something being 'Machiavellian' is far more of a bastardisation, if looking at the original man, than using 'McCarthyism' on Cammies.
Krystyna
Honestly
Date: 2002-09-06 05:42 am (UTC)Re: Honestly
Date: 2002-09-06 05:54 am (UTC)Re: Honestly
Date: 2002-09-06 06:37 am (UTC)Re: Honestly
Re: Honestly
Date: 2002-09-06 06:38 am (UTC)meep?
Date: 2002-09-06 05:49 am (UTC)BUT - If I have offended anyone - Sorry.
Shouldn't use historical 'catch-words' if you don't understand all of the history behind it. :(
Re: meep?
Date: 2002-09-06 05:52 am (UTC)No offense meant, and I hope none taken?
Re: meep?
Date: 2002-09-06 06:04 am (UTC)Better that I say sorry and you say no worries than me say nothing and you are upset.
:)
no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 06:15 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-06 06:17 am (UTC)Havent'we got a lot to answer for?
no subject
Re:
Date: 2002-09-06 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 02:39 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-06 06:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 06:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-06 06:31 am (UTC)This self-ghettoises the individuals and defines them by one aspect of their existence, thus divorcing them from the expanse of humanity and organising their wagons into a circle determined to keep all who don't fall into their defined group at bay.
P.S. I'm drunk and can't think straight - damned works happy hour.
Re:
Date: 2002-09-06 06:39 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-09-06 06:48 am (UTC)Mucky part flurble!
Psssingwibble!
And so on. .
Hmmm....
Date: 2002-09-06 03:46 pm (UTC)Actually, that does sound like at least an aspect of McCarthyism.
I agree but ...
Date: 2002-09-07 11:15 am (UTC)I agree wholeheartedly with the misuse (abuse?) of language. My pet peeve is 'decimate' ... now taken to mean something akin to annihilate when really a 10% cost is a bargain in most cases.
On this though: "It’s sad that this should be the case. McCarthyism destroyed the lives of hundreds of innocent people, demonstrably drove several dozen into suicide and remains a scar on the American conscience to this day."
I have to say above and beyond the fact that every time and place is in a state of flux anyway, it is my observation (and please disagree all you like anyone) that much of the resonance of the McCarthy experience is being lost in the US. Probably a mix of far fewer people who actually lived through it, or lived in its shadow ... and some worrying changes (for me anyway) in sensibilities concerning 'national security.'
I am reminded of Oliver North's bid for the Senate in Virginia in the mid 1990s. The more youthful voters were entirely supportive of his stance of absolute loyalty to American principles above the rule of law ... and in time they will outnumber/outvote the aging veterans who kept the criminal out of office.
I'm just waiting for the next historical repetition to cycle our way, with another post-11 September Barry Goldwater-ish statement of 'extremism in defence of liberty is no vice' bit. Ah, but now I'm whinging. :)
A counter-meme to this language misuse?
Date: 2002-09-07 11:18 am (UTC)Further, could a Godwin's Law be applied to this problem of misused language?
:)