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

“Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 129 posts

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#31

Post by ukj »

keiferski wrote: post #29
ukj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying. You are not seeing that it doesn't work. Instead of calling you a 'terrorist' (noun). I can simply describe your actions/behaviour as 'terrorising' (verb). Whether I classify you into a noun-class or a verb-class is moot. I am still classifying your behaviour as terrorism, not freedom fighting.

At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. By actions I mean specific things, not the broad amorphous label of "terrorizing." As I said, if you narrow it down to specific actions (shooting, bombing, protest, etc.) the distinction between the two seems far more clear. I don't think anyone would claim that killing a crowd of civilians is somehow a freedom-fighting act, even if i…

>At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument.

Person A defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'terrorism'. Person B defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'freedom fighting'.

They do it ostensively. THAT (points finger) is X.

Language doesn't work the way you think it works.

What you are trying to achieve is called Essentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#32

Post by keiferski »

ukj wrote: post #31
keiferski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. By actions I mean specific things, not the broad amorphous label of "terrorizing." As I said, if you narrow it down to specific actions (shooting, bombing, protest, etc.) the distinction between the two seems far more clear. I don't think anyone would claim that killing a crowd of civilians is somehow a freedom-fighting act, even if i…

>At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. Person A defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'terrorism'. Person B defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'freedom fighting'. They do it ostensively. THAT (points finger) is X. Language doesn't work the way you think it works. What you are trying to achieve is called Essentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

I mean, you can define words however you want, but as I just said, I have a hard time believing that anyone would categorize "blowing up a bus filled with civilians" as a freedom-fighting act. Are you arguing that some people are justified in saying it is?

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#33

Post by JohnStrangeII »

ukj wrote: post #10
keiferski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can, see my definition above. The crucial feature is whether civilians are intentionally targeted or not. You can add all kinds of clauses (e.g. to conveniently exclude military forces of nation states), but that's the morally relevant criterion. A group that is intentionally targeting civilians for political reasons is a terrorist organization.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#34

Post by ukj »

keiferski wrote: post #32
ukj wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At some point, you still have to define what the actions are, which is my argument. Person A defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'terrorism'. Person B defines the EXACT SAME precise sets of actions as 'freedom fighting'. They do it ostensively. THAT (points finger) is X. Language doesn't work the way you think it works. What you are trying to achieve is called Essentialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

I mean, you can define words however you want, but as I just said, I have a hard time believing that anyone would categorize "blowing up a bus filled with civilians" as a freedom-fighting act. Are you arguing that some people are justified in saying it is?

The person who blew up the bus and everybody who supports their actions defined it as 'freedom fighting'.

That is how they justified killing civilians to themselves. Casualties of war.

Just a short excursion into recent history: Nelson Mandela was once classified as a terrorist. It's because the ANC was involved in a number of bombings while engaging in 'freedom-fighting'.

https://time.com/5338569/nelson-mandela-terror-list/

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#35

Post by keiferski »

ukj wrote: post #34
keiferski wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you can define words however you want, but as I just said, I have a hard time believing that anyone would categorize "blowing up a bus filled with civilians" as a freedom-fighting act. Are you arguing that some people are justified in saying it is?

The person who blew up the bus and everybody who supports their actions defined it as 'freedom fighting'. That is how they justified killing civilians to themselves. Casualties of war. Just a short excursion into recent history: Nelson Mandela was once classified as a terrorist. It's because the ANC was involved in a number of bombings while engaging in 'freedom-fighting'. https://time.com/5338569/nelson-mandela-terr…

The issue isn't what particular actors think to justify their beliefs, but whether society-wide definitions are justified. This is a practical matter.

As I said initially: if you stick to describing actions, rather than intents or consequences, the difficulty of defining things is much easier.

Your example is also illustrating my point perfectly. Under my system, Nelson Mandela would not be a terrorist or a freedom fighter, he would be a man who engaged in both (separately) terroristic acts and freedom-fighting acts. That seems far less controversial of a statement to me.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#36

Post by ukj »

keiferski wrote: post #35
ukj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person who blew up the bus and everybody who supports their actions defined it as 'freedom fighting'. That is how they justified killing civilians to themselves. Casualties of war. Just a short excursion into recent history: Nelson Mandela was once classified as a terrorist. It's because the ANC was involved in a number of bombings while engaging in 'freedom-fighting'. https://time.com/5338569/nelson-mandela-terr…

The issue isn't what particular actors think to justify their beliefs, but whether society-wide definitions are justified. This is a practical matter. As I said initially: if you stick to describing actions, rather than intents or consequences, the difficulty of defining things is much easier. Your example is also illustrating my point perfectly. Under my system, Nelson Mandela would not be a terrorist or a freedom f…

The ANC engaged in blowing up a bar full of civilians.

Was that an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_beach-front_bombing

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#37

Post by keiferski »

ukj wrote: post #36
keiferski wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't what particular actors think to justify their beliefs, but whether society-wide definitions are justified. This is a practical matter. As I said initially: if you stick to describing actions, rather than intents or consequences, the difficulty of defining things is much easier. Your example is also illustrating my point perfectly. Under my system, Nelson Mandela would not be a terrorist or a freedom f…

The ANC engaged in blowing up a bar full of civilians. Was that an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_beach-front_bombing

It seems like you aren't really reading my comments, because as I have said a few times now, this would clearly be an act of terrorism.

If your next question will be, "Is the ANC then a terrorist organization?" I refer you to my previous comment where I said we should avoid labeling nouns, but instead label actions.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#38

Post by skissane »

ukj wrote: post #20
zajio1am wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? 'terrorists' are by definition people committing terrorism. Any definition of 'terrorismu' whould define a set of terrorists, bud different definitions would lead to different people considered terrorists. Defining terrorism is not hard - public violence on civilians for ideological (political, religious) reasons. Or more narrow definition that would replace 'civilians' with 'general public' (t exclude attac…

And freedom fighters are by definition people committing freedom fighting. >What you cannot is to hope that any definition of 'terrorism' would include all 'evil' acts and exclude all 'good' acts, because distinction between these is complex. Precisely the problem. Ceteris paribus, it's 'terrorism' when you think it's 'evil', and it's freedom fighting' when you think it's 'good'. Two different descriptions of exactly…

> Ceteris paribus, it's 'terrorism' when you think it's 'evil', and it's freedom fighting' when you think it’s 'good'

Is “good terrorism” impossible? What if the year is 1942 and you are trying to blow up a Nazi party meeting?

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#39

Post by ukj »

keiferski wrote: post #37
ukj wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ANC engaged in blowing up a bar full of civilians. Was that an act of terrorism or an act of freedom fighting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_beach-front_bombing

It seems like you aren't really reading my comments, because as I have said a few times now, this would clearly be an act of terrorism. If your next question will be, "Is the ANC then a terrorist organization?" I refer you to my previous comment where I said we should avoid labeling nouns, but instead label actions.

Why are you interpreting it that way?

Labeling actions is exactly what I did.

The acton was "blowing up a bar full of civilians".

You labelled that action as 'terrorism'. The ANC labelled that action as 'freedom fighting'.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#40

Post by twelvechairs »

ukj wrote: post #6

Language evolves. Use and meaning of words changes over time. Logocentrists are surprised. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism

English evolves because it is polycentric. Other languages are held back by formal regulators from evolving (e.g. Association of Spanish Language Academies, Académie française, Council for German Orthography, China's State Language Work Committee, etc.)
Post reply on HN