Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Autocrat's Language

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#71

Post by schoen »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #60
pvg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would 'news' become dead? Nazism had a substantial impact on German both on its way in and out - it developed/repurposed its own special phraseology and terms and those terms later fell out of use (or at least, in out of use in the contexts of their Nazi use). But this happened through focused effort, up to and including laws. Nothing of the sort has happened or is likely to happen to the word 'news'.

As far as I know, there's never been a post-war effort to ban the word "Führer", nor did the Nazis try to remove the ordinary meaning. Heck, calling Hitler "The Leader" was in no way an abuse of language. And yet the word has become uncommon because of a kind of shared embaressment. Now I think tacon is wrong to think that "news" will go a similar way, but if it can happen to simple and basic words like "leader", the…

I want to suggest that "Führer" did have an unusual specific ideological connotation in the Third Reich that is very different from just saying "Adolf Hitler was the leader of Germany and FDR was the leader of the United States".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#72

Post by mannykannot »

thenewwazoo wrote: post #53
mannykannot wrote: post #49

This is like a variant of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that your language constrains what you can think about, but I am not convinced (not in general, and not in this particular case.) It is not a failing of language that it can be used inconsistently, or to lie; this is inevitable. The problem in current political discourse is a growing preference among the electorate for having their emotions stimulated…

I think you're conflating the two. Take, for example, the word "election". If the word "election" can mean both an election, and a not-election – of the sort experienced in the USSR – then how do you describe the election you want to have? The word is meaningless, and thus it throws the very concept into doubt. This has nothing to do with Sapir-Whorf, which isn't really a strong proposition anyway. You have a concept…

The point I was trying to make is that 'election' means election and not non-election, and the problem is when people don't care about the ab-usage. My understanding (admittedly very second-hand) is that this sort of nonsense in the USSR was the subject of widely-circulated jokes, indicating that those who cared about the difference found a way to express themselves, and to create a shared culture of cryptic dissent (less cryptic dissent was suppressed with more than the abuse of language.)

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#73

Post by mirimir »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #69
mirimir wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and arguably to every revolution. Some were good, some were bad, and some were epically bad.

But in the case of bad revolutions, would the story have ended up any better if people had somehow maintained the spell of ignorance about the previous regime? I think it more likely that would just lead to an even worse revolution a bit further down the track.

Democracy can produce horrible results. Dishonest and/or sociopathic demagogues can exploit dissatisfaction. In the US, for example, Presidential elections were designed to temper democracy, through the Electoral College. It's become restricted pretty much to tie breaking. But one can imagine situations where it would basically declare a cooling off period, by picking a caretaker President.

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#74

Post by mannykannot »

pizza wrote: post #61
thenewwazoo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're conflating the two. Take, for example, the word "election". If the word "election" can mean both an election, and a not-election – of the sort experienced in the USSR – then how do you describe the election you want to have? The word is meaningless, and thus it throws the very concept into doubt. This has nothing to do with Sapir-Whorf, which isn't really a strong proposition anyway. You have a concept…

Yeah, this makes sense to me according to my experience of people's perceptions of loaded words. When a word may seem like it has e.g. five or six meanings - it conveys more bits of information - plausible deniability -> capacity to retroactively compress the word's meaning - people 'analyze'/recognize simpler words (only one meaning, i.e. GitHub) differently than they do loaded words (multiple meanings, i.e. dream)…

I am not sure that plausible deniability is much of an issue, because the people making such statements don't seem to care if they are caught in a contradiction or lie. Why don't they care? Because their supporters, and those who are close to being their supporters, don't care. It's not so much about deceiving the skeptics (who are not likely to be deceived anyway) as it is about giving those who incline to one's views an excuse for believing that their instincts were unquestionably right, and to get them worked up about it (this applies to Trump et. al. rather than Stalin, because the latter had other means of getting his way, and whatever you think of Trump, he is no Stalin.)

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#75

Post by andrewem »

mirimir wrote: post #57
roenxi wrote: post #17

That was a pleasure to read. Pushing the politics to one side; there is a call here to use words correctly and to use clear and unambiguous descriptions. That is a coherent and entirely reasonable expectation on any political dialog. Doubly rewarding was that the writing style, while not pro-Trump, avoids the bile and hysteria that has been common since the last American election. Limiting criticism to unclear langua…

I also loved the article. However, I thought that he was too hard on Trump, in his dissection of that interview. I'm certainly no Trump supporter. And yet, his comments about the missiles in Syria struck me as honestly reflective. Trump does bullshit a lot, and it's easy to make fun of him. But that's arguably more honest than typical Presidential rhetoric.

(As was noted elsewhere in the comments on this submission, the author is a woman, and quite well known - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masha_Gessen)

It's hard to know how to criticize your comment constructively, though one might say that it's not that "Trump does bullshit a lot", it's that he cannot escape bullshitting in any situation. He exists outside facts.

If you think the author's criticism of Trump is too harsh, then you should read her earlier piece published just after the election: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autoc...

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#76

Post by andrewem »

akkartik wrote: post #29
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 wrote: post #13

Regarding NPR's choice of words: it is in fact quite common to avoid very direct accusations in politics and news. I really doubt the author came about this for the first time ever, but rather wonder if he detested it as much each and every time earlier.

The reason to avoid very direct accusations in politics in news is to keep your powder dry -- so that you can have greater impact when you truly need to do so.

The argument the author makes is exactly that this is a time where words like "lies" are necessary, and to avoid them now constitutes lying to your audience rather than avoiding inappropriate overstatement.

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#77

Post by pizza »

mannykannot wrote: post #74
pizza wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this makes sense to me according to my experience of people's perceptions of loaded words. When a word may seem like it has e.g. five or six meanings - it conveys more bits of information - plausible deniability -> capacity to retroactively compress the word's meaning - people 'analyze'/recognize simpler words (only one meaning, i.e. GitHub) differently than they do loaded words (multiple meanings, i.e. dream)…

I am not sure that plausible deniability is much of an issue, because the people making such statements don't seem to care if they are caught in a contradiction or lie. Why don't they care? Because their supporters, and those who are close to being their supporters, don't care. It's not so much about deceiving the skeptics (who are not likely to be deceived anyway) as it is about giving those who incline to one's vie…

I agree, but what I'm saying is that perceived plausible deniability makes speaking out against quadruple-entendres seem more futile, as any supporter can say it meant something else

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#78

Post by adrianratnapala »

schoen wrote: post #71
adrianratnapala wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, there's never been a post-war effort to ban the word "Führer", nor did the Nazis try to remove the ordinary meaning. Heck, calling Hitler "The Leader" was in no way an abuse of language. And yet the word has become uncommon because of a kind of shared embaressment. Now I think tacon is wrong to think that "news" will go a similar way, but if it can happen to simple and basic words like "leader", the…

I want to suggest that "Führer" did have an unusual specific ideological connotation in the Third Reich that is very different from just saying "Adolf Hitler was the leader of Germany and FDR was the leader of the United States". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip

Correct, but that is still in line with it being an appropriate use of language.

In Iran Ayatollah Khamenei has the unofficial title of "Supreme Leader". This is a very specific title within Iran, and has a specific ideological connotation. And yet it is also a perfectly normal and accurate use of the word "Leader".

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#79

Post by InternetOfStuff »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #58
im3w1l wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leiter, I believe.

Yes, when I lived in Germany I heard "Leiter" a lot when I expected "Führer". To me it sounds like it should mean "conductor". Can real German speakers tell me if "Leiter" was always a very common word for this usage or merely a not-unreasonable word that won out post-war because it happens to be a bit like the English word? (In fact I suspect they are cognate, maybe that's why electrical conductors are sometimes cal…

Native speaker here.

Führer and Leiter seem similar in meaning, but are really quite distinct, both in denotation and connotation. And, contrary to what grandparent poster said, Führer is by no means dead.

"Führer" means guide. As in, a mountain guide ("Bergführer"), tourist guide ("Reiseführer" - both guide book and person), or driver of a vehicle: driving license ("Führerschein").

Similarly, "Anführer" is a leader of a like-minded group, often in the sense that he is not a formal leader. To pick an example from current affairs: Carles Puigdemont is (formally) the president of Catalunya, and (informally) the leader ("Anführer") of the independence movement. There is quite a number of words derived from Führer.

The verb "leiten" means to direct. Thus, a "Leiter" is somebody who gives directions: a director. This was, and is, a reasonable word, especially in a professional context.

To explain the Nazi diction a bit. Think of uses like Bergführer ("mountain guide"): somebody who leads his charges skillfully through treacherous terrain. I suppose that was the kind of image the Nazis wanted to project on Adolf Hitler (who you are of course referring to). It's true that Führer may sound politically piquant to German ears, but only in quite specific contexts. It's a pretty normal word.

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#80

Post by InternetOfStuff »

tacon wrote: post #9

I don't speak German, so it was somewhat surprising to me when I learned that Führer means "leader" (or "guide", according to Wikipedia). And that that word is essentially dead in modern German speech. So how do you refer to the "leader" now?, I asked. I didn't get a good answer to that question, but it would probably take more understanding of German as to how they get by without the obvious word. I wonder if "news"…

German native speaker here.

> that word [Führer] is essentially dead in modern German speech.

This is not at all the case. It's a perfectly ordinary word. It's merely burnt in specific (but not even all) political contexts.

I went in more detail in another reply further down the thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15414994

Post reply on HN