“Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
1–10 of 129 posts
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#2Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#3As the article points out, irregardless is pretty uncommon.
I'll be much more horrified when Merriam-Webster begins defining terrorism the way that the Americans often use it in common discourse, i.e., the attacker's acts were terrifying and the victims and community were terrorised, therefore he's a terrorist.
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#4As the article points out, irregardless is pretty uncommon. I'll be much more horrified when Merriam-Webster begins defining terrorism the way that the Americans often use it in common discourse, i.e. , the attacker's acts were terrifying and the victims and community were terrorised, therefore he's a terrorist.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but what is the issue with that definition? Lack of an explicit political goal?
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#5As the article points out, irregardless is pretty uncommon. I'll be much more horrified when Merriam-Webster begins defining terrorism the way that the Americans often use it in common discourse, i.e. , the attacker's acts were terrifying and the victims and community were terrorised, therefore he's a terrorist.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but what is the issue with that definition? Lack of an explicit political goal?
[deleted]
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#6Language evolves. Use and meaning of words changes over time.
Logocentrists are surprised.
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#7As the article points out, irregardless is pretty uncommon. I'll be much more horrified when Merriam-Webster begins defining terrorism the way that the Americans often use it in common discourse, i.e. , the attacker's acts were terrifying and the victims and community were terrorised, therefore he's a terrorist.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but what is the issue with that definition? Lack of an explicit political goal?
It’s a problem because it bases the definition on the feelings of the recipients and not on the actions of the perpetrators.
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm just an ignorant American, but what is the issue with that definition? Lack of an explicit political goal?
It’s a problem because it bases the definition on the feelings of the recipients and not on the actions of the perpetrators.
Both terrorists and freedom fighters act the same way.
In the battlefield of narratives perspective matters.
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a problem because it bases the definition on the feelings of the recipients and not on the actions of the perpetrators.
Both terrorists and freedom fighters act the same way. In the battlefield of narratives perspective matters.
Sure, but I think this meme is actually not so clearly true in practice. Freedom fighters may engage in terrorist acts (see Algeria for example) but that doesn’t seem like a quality of “fighting for freedom”, merely a correlative practice.
Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both terrorists and freedom fighters act the same way. In the battlefield of narratives perspective matters.
Sure, but I think this meme is actually not so clearly true in practice. Freedom fighters may engage in terrorist acts (see Algeria for example) but that doesn’t seem like a quality of “fighting for freedom”, merely a correlative practice.
OK, but that's how language is broken.
You can't define 'terrorism' in such a way so as to include all terrorists, and exclude all non-terrorists.
This is the essentialist dream.