It would be funnier if it didn’t happen to be so true.
Resident [signifier] asks:
I wonder why so many care so much about semantics
I don’t know. Why do people care so much about wingers calling it the “Democrat” party? Why do people care whether it’s a “baby” or a “fetus”? Why do people care if it’s (metaphorically speaking) a “landslide” or a “tsunami” or whether it is a “mandate,” or a “gay man” rather than a “faggot,” or a “native American” rather than a “macaca”? Could it be that the language that we use to characterize things and conditions is somehow important?
How would you characterize this? (h/t Joe Malchow)
Look, I’ll reduce this to the lowest common denominator: If you don’t care about the relation of the signifier to the signified, you may end up writing poetry like Dana Gilbert Ward’s. And if you don’t think that’s funny, please write and tell me why.
That’s great. Also the Hoyer/Pelosi vote thing is hilarious.
Why is it such a big deal what one calls the tumult in Iraq? Isn’t that only importatn for domestic policitcal consumption? Further, since 60% of the American people would like a “phased redeployment” to begin insides the next year and remaining 35-40% will support the effort to stay no matter what, then who cares what Matt Lauer has to say. I haven’t changed my opinion, Dan hasn’t changed his, The President hasn’t changed his.
I wonder why so many care so much about semantics
You must be new around here.
Speeling is ovarated to.
Sorry, Bmoe, I have a job and I was typing at the end of a break.
I will commend you for, as usual, commenting on the substance of a post…Your ability to spell is apparently inversly proportional with your ability to comment in an interesting manner.
Answer the question. Why should I care?
Semantics is not a distinction between objects or concepts that are different. It is calling the same thing a different name. Car bombs and sectarian violence are the same whether you call it “George’s great idea” or “civil war.”
The funny thing is you know that and are playing dumb to demagogue to an audience.
By the way, the Indian dude that Allen insulted was of Indian descent, not Native American descent. Ironically, he was a native to our country, as much a citizen as you or I or George “All American” Allen. I’m going to assume you know the difference between India and Native Americans. After all, you know so much.
You have a very pop-cultural idea of what “semantics” means, the same crude use of language that we get with “rhetorical”. The issue over “macaca,” though, is interesting, because it was conjectured that All-American Allen may have heard his mother use the term in relation to native Americans. I agree that he’s every bit as much an American as I am.
But you cannot deal with the issue of whether or not the words that we choose to use ought to be accurate or not. So the next time your favorite football team is absolutely destroyed and humiliated by their opponents on a last-second field goal, I’m certain you won’t care.
How do you think those people came to those opinions? Do you really think those percentages are carved in stone and couldn’t be swayed? Actually, where did you get those percentages and how were the survey questions phrased? How does the phrasing affect the answers of survey questions?
Answer some of these questions and you might understand why semantics are important and won’t sound like such a friggin’ idiot. That enough substance for you?
Symbols matter because they color how we think about the world. Calling it a “civil war” implies that there is no outside involvement, and there manifestly is. Iran is involved, as is Syria, Turkey and the ol’ Magic Kingdom itself.
The only ones with brains enough to stay as far away from messing about with the US in Iraq are the Jordanians, as far as I can tell, and only “officially” there. Jordan is being used as a staging and transport area.
No, BMoe, your substance was poor. The idea that the American people are a bunch of sheep led astray from your great idea to another by some omnipotent press coverage is laughable. Every poll of the last six months has listed those percentages and the one that really mattered was held on November 7th. in that poll, voters rejected the President’s war party by a 55 to 47 margin.
Look, I never watch Matt Lauer. I listen to Sean Hannity and read this blog. I watched my cousin go to Haditha and place himself in harm’s way for nothing. I watched my brother-in-law, a Navy man no less, get re-assigned to the Army and leave a one year old and two year old to go fight this war.
And, despite, all those things I have known what you still do not after 4 years, the war was a stupid idea. And, no listening to the VP lie about it, or John Kerry spin his vote, or Hillary Clinton rationalize hers, or Matt Lauer call something a civil war can make you or I or the American people change their minds. They are tired of a fiasco and they want out.
You call it what you want. Frankly, I could care less. But, you and your snarky friends apparently do not understand the rest of the people are not as easily led as you seem to think they are.
So neo is opposed to the war because he has just always known it was a bad idea, and the rest of the people have come to the same idea just by… knowing without any real reason also?
Of course it is, sheep can only be led astray by bad Bushco intelligence.