> The term is not friggin' harmless as it's integral to the Newspeak > storytelling they're doing.
Orwell's theory of newspeak is incomplete without the societal context of _1984_. The whole language-control and information-control system wouldn't work without all the other kinds of control that he describes (along with the permanent war environment). In line with bogus totalitarianism theories which he helped to spawn, he also seems to assume that the state can totally control "human nature," so that the state can totally control society. I reject that assumption. (In any event, Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD has a better story here.) It's true that the Bushwhackers choose the language that they use in order to do propaganda. But we should choose our battles, ignoring such (relatively) harmless words as "insurgency." For example, caviling about words can distract people from more substantive issues such as "Coase & the State." The meaning of the word "insurgency" (like that of most other words) depends on the context. Within the entire context of "the Newspeak storytelling they're doing" it means one thing, while in the context of the "INSURGENT SOCIOLOGIST" it has another. It seems better to attack the Bushcrud context rather than one word. > You wouldn't want to suggest that we need not contest their use of the words > legality or torture because those a harmless terms would you?< of course I would contest their bogus legality and their tortured use of words like "torture" and "terrorism." That's why, of course, I used the word "relatively" with the word "harmless" as applied to "insurgency." >Jeebus< Moses! -- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
