![[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 05:36 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