At least 138 people are dead in Sri Lanka.
- Thread starter Hijinx
- Start date
This_person
Well-Known Member
The people complaining about the way they worded it.
Personally, I don't care, as they are long since past their 15 minutes and I give them little credence at all.
Others, however, give them a great deal of respect and follow their thoughts and actions. So, people who don't like their thoughts and actions (as opposed to me, who cares little about their thoughts and actions) are justifiably upset that these "thought leaders" made what you agree is a conscious, deliberate choice to reject the word "Christians" in favor of the phrase "Easter worshippers". As in, this was clearly not an attack on Christianity, just some Easter worshippers. When one does a search in the future (about 15 minutes from now) when people stop caring about Sri Lanka, and it fades the way New Zealand did and Boston did and London and Paris and so many other attacks have, and one does a word-search for "attacks on Christians", this is just a smidge less likely to pop up because it wasn't Christians, it was Easter worshippers. Much like it's not a Christian holiday in December, it's "Happy Holidays".
It's a slow, deliberate degradation of a specific faith. The key word there is deliberate. That is what people are against.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Actually, fair question.
But for me, whose job entailed speaking in several other foreign languages, word choice is extremely important.
Here's (perhaps) an interesting aside in support of my assertion. There's a train of thought in language study (that is actually quite self-evident) that culture drives language and language drives culture.
I learned quite some time ago (at DLI) that there is probably a good reason why Russians are good at chess (i.e., word order drives meaning and chess requires thinking about variations so it would make sense Russians would be good chess players. Add in Jews (as in, Russian Jews) and you might be expected to see an even better chess player as we add a new language that is right to left and has a different alphabet; meaning not only to we see variational thinking we see thinking from an entirely different perspective).
So I'm of the opinion that the whole language thing is quite important; that it matters. Thus, I care.
--- End of line (MCP)
Last edited:
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Excellent post. Especially this part ^^^^. You def earned the "like"!
--- End of line (MCP)
TCROW
Well-Known Member
I think I agree with much of that.
However, I would still say that using the word “extremism” is a disservice. It waters down the behavior of these people. Properly understood, the takeaway when reading reporting of violent events, watching the news, hearing an elected official speak about it, etc — these are not extreme events. Rather they are fundamental to the religion.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Believe it or not, a colleague and I had this a conversation just a bit ago on this exact subject. Neither of us talked about this Carlin bit; I didn't even know about it, don't think my colleague did. And the conversation flowed along very similar (if not exact) lines.
It went one step further, though. Our complaint was that as the words describing the "problem" got more euphemistic, more people seem to be coming on-board claiming the problem. For example, back in WWI you had to be actually shocked by shells to get the determination of "shell shock." Now you just have to have bad memories about something to get a diagnosis with PTSD (watching 9/11 on TV comes to mind; I exaggerate, but only just a little).
So are the words softer because we're softer? Or are we softer because the words are? Or is it a dynamic dance? I say, "all of the above."
Great add. T/Y.
--- End of line (MCP)
Last edited:
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Here's another reason I care.
Because words are powerful. It's an adage of every totalitarian regime to control language. We all know that, we've read "1984." To cede control of a word is to be put at a disadvantage. To gain control of a word is to control conversations about that word/those words.
Here's are a few examples.
The homosexual community did a great job seizing and gaining control of a whole slew of words. "Gay" immediately comes to mind. What words it collectively didn't like (but found useful) were seized nonetheless and fenced away for private use. Think "queer," "******," etc. (Update: that this forum's software turned a word the English use for "match" or "bundle of wood" into a series of asterisks only serves to underscore my point.)
Like the "N word" or the "C word" (for their respective communities) "queer" can only be used by non-homosexuals by permission. Talk about privilege!
If I (as a non-black, non-radical feminist, non-homosexual) use any of these fenced-off words I'm being hurtful in some form or fashion. Why? Because these communities have successfully created a social more that says I need permission if I don't want to be offensive (regardless of how the word is used; the firing of Papa John comes to mind as a cogent example).
These communities get to call themselves "N's," "C's," "Q's," etc., because they have convinced "the commons" that these are their words and they can use them as they see fit (this is actually one reason the intersectionality paradigm exists; to referee all of this).
As a matter of linguistics I should be able to use these words if I want to (in any sense) because these communities use it about themselves (in both positive senses (words of belonging) as well as negative senses (words of derision)). But I can't; they've claimed ownership and society seems, on the whole, okay with it.
So full circle back to the Sri Lanka tweets. The "Christian" vis-a-vis "Easter worshiper" kerfuffle is a reverse image of the "N," "C," or "Q" issue. In this case, Christians aren't taking on and claiming control of a new word, there's a concerted attempt rebrand, render irrelevant (linguisitically), and (as This_person noted) diminish a faith.
So I also care for this reason.
--- End of line (MCP)
Last edited:
No it is not ... it is a CORE Tenant of Ilsam
- Kill unbelievers were you find them <---- the most popular Islam is a Totalitarian Dealth Cult
- Enslave them <---- 2nd most popular for women only
- tax them < ----- least likely
TCROW
Well-Known Member
Well I’m not going to date you.
Now, Julian Castro did the same thing by the way. He said, “On a day of redemption and hope, the evil of these attacks on Easter worshippers and tourists in Sri Lanka is deeply saddening. My prayers today are with the dead and injured, and their families. May we find grace.” This is so strange. Why all of these responses say, “Easter worshippers.” Hillary Clinton, when there are attacks on gay people, she says I stand with the LGBT community. When Orlando gets hit, she doesn’t say, I stand with nightclub dancers, my heart goes out to nightclub dancers. No, it’s I stand with the LGBT community.
When Muslims are attacked for something, she doesn’t say, I stand with Ramadan worshippers. I stand with Hijab wearers. No, she says I stand with Muslims. But when it’s Christians, then we can’t say that. We’re not allowed to say that word. It’s just too accurate and precise. We’re not allowed to use that kind of language when we’re talking about our culture, our civilization. Christians aren’t allowed to do that. We need this generic, made up term which no one had used until last night.
So why is the left using the phrase? Nobody worships Easter. We’ve never heard of this phrase before. We worship Christ, we are Christ worshippers. If you want to use the word worshippers, use the word Christ. Why can’t the left say the word Christian? It’s because Christians can't be victims. Obviously, not in reality though. In reality, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. But in leftist ideology, Christians cannot be victims because of all of their theories, because of intersectionality. Because we know that at the top of the oppressor pyramid is the straight white man who knows that he is a man, who is a Christian. That’s the worst oppressor in the whole world. So, when that person is the victim, he can’t be a Christian. He has to be some new phrase. He has to be an Easter worshipper.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46305/knowles-attacks-were-christians-not-easter-daily-wire
When Muslims are attacked for something, she doesn’t say, I stand with Ramadan worshippers. I stand with Hijab wearers. No, she says I stand with Muslims. But when it’s Christians, then we can’t say that. We’re not allowed to say that word. It’s just too accurate and precise. We’re not allowed to use that kind of language when we’re talking about our culture, our civilization. Christians aren’t allowed to do that. We need this generic, made up term which no one had used until last night.
So why is the left using the phrase? Nobody worships Easter. We’ve never heard of this phrase before. We worship Christ, we are Christ worshippers. If you want to use the word worshippers, use the word Christ. Why can’t the left say the word Christian? It’s because Christians can't be victims. Obviously, not in reality though. In reality, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. But in leftist ideology, Christians cannot be victims because of all of their theories, because of intersectionality. Because we know that at the top of the oppressor pyramid is the straight white man who knows that he is a man, who is a Christian. That’s the worst oppressor in the whole world. So, when that person is the victim, he can’t be a Christian. He has to be some new phrase. He has to be an Easter worshipper.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46305/knowles-attacks-were-christians-not-easter-daily-wire
This_person
Well-Known Member
What Noack really seems to have an issue with is notion of the oppressed Christian — but the oppression of Christian in Islamist and totalitarian societies is a well-known fact, as The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh pointed out yesterday. And as Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner notes, "Christians in the Middle East have just survived a genocide attempt by ISIS. Christians in pitiless, autocratic regimes, including Iran, China, and North Korea, are subjected regularly to persecution. In fact, Christianity is the most harassed faith in the world, followed closely by Islam, according to the Pew Research Center."
This is hardly the only recent instance of The Washington Post publishing a defamatory hit on Western conservatives. Just last week and in a similar cultural context, as The Daily Wire's Emily Zanotti reported, The Washington Post published a disgraceful and calumnious smear against Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46351/wapo-responds-sri-lanka-massacres-focusing-far-josh-hammer
This is hardly the only recent instance of The Washington Post publishing a defamatory hit on Western conservatives. Just last week and in a similar cultural context, as The Daily Wire's Emily Zanotti reported, The Washington Post published a disgraceful and calumnious smear against Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46351/wapo-responds-sri-lanka-massacres-focusing-far-josh-hammer
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Yea, the right wing news outlets who like to complain about the trivial things the left gets upset about. That's where all this started and it's find of funny considering the most vocal members on here that decry the "dishonest media" are clearly being led by the nose andbeing told what to get upset about.
You agree that Obama and Clinton should just be out of the spotlight. They aren't in public office, so why should we care? Well, that is, until dailywire, Breitbart, and a host of other outlets say people should.
Then why have you ignored all the other words in the tweets that clearly point to the fact that these people (Obama, Clinton, etc.) specifically mentioned the religious significance of the day and offered their prayers to the victims?
Why take the full statement into account when we can focus on 2 words?
Those words "(Enter religious day here) Worshippers" are, in fact, used. They have been used a number of times over the years (including by churches, news outlets, etc.) and someone who studies language knows that terms do, in fact, become outdated, but the words and meaning don't change simply because the vernacular did.
Are you saying Congolese Christians were killed because of their faith? Christians make up over 90% of Congo's population (81.34 million people). I'm curious where you found that info.
Last edited:
