On 5/14/05, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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!
----------------------------- My oh my, that's a lot of words saying that words don't matter too much. Tell me more about this Orwell fellow, I haven't heard/read too much of him and those other fellows Wittgenstein, Austin and Lakoff................
