![[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.
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. :)