I wrote:>> so where are the negative connotations of the word
"insurgent"? Just because one uses that word doesn't mean that the US
invaders are good in some way.<<
Ian writes: > Look at the definition under 'adjective' [i.e., in
opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious,
subversive] and tell me it's not loaded with normativity.<
aren't almost all complex words loaded with "normativity"? I didn't
know the difference between positive and normative was so stark.
Many in the old counter-culture used the word "freak" as a badge of
honor. There used to be a sociology mag titled the "INSURGENT
SOCIOLOGIST" -- with the assumption that insurgency was a good thing
(not a mark of shame). Nowadays, a lot of gays call themselves
"queer," rejecting the negative connotations. I think this is the way
to go. I call myself a subversive sometimes, while I don't see
anything wrong with sedition if the "civil authority or government" is
f*ktup.
> Screw political correctness, that's what the Pentagon and others are doing
> with a skill that shows they've read Orwell and Machiavelli and others
> regarding the discourses of treachery and deception. Do you want me to have
> George Lakoff give you a call?<
frankly, I don't know who George Lakoff is -- or why I should respect
his opinions. I'll have to google him.
you're right that "political correctness" is just as much a right-wing
phenomenon as it infects the other wing of the bird. ("French fries
should be called freedom fries...")
> And don't get me started on performativity............... :-)
what in heck is "performativity"? I don't know jargon that well
outside my own narrow academic boundaries.
> "C'mon Mr. Krinkle, tell me why" [Primus]
who is Mr. Krinkle? who is Primus?
Michael Perelman writes:
>Is the "insurgent" debate really useful here?<
Maybe, but arguments about the meaning and connotations of words are
pretty harmless. Besides, pen-l doesn't seem to have debates any more.
--
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
