-ist

[talktooloose]

A lot of nothing being said right now about the latest incident in London. It might be a very poorly executed terror strike, but at this moment I'm thinking it's a prank; maybe three smoke-bombs on the underground and one dud on a bus.

What drives me crazy is the so-called experts that they seek out for "information" in the news void. The CBC is looking for clarification from this one expert on terrorism, but right away I smell something fishy and sure enough he goes on to say, "The only real question is whether Britons are going to allow themselves to be pushed around by the likes of Al Quaeda or whether they're going to finally bring in some anti-terror laws with teeth." Thanks for the clarification on the situation, sir.

The most interesting aspect of his speech was linguistic as he single-mindedly pushed the term "Islamist" at us. It's a fascinating word, linked as it is historically with other "enemies of freedom" like "communISTS" and "socialISTS".

Like those terms, it seems to make suspect anyone who explores or embraces this dangerous philosophy itself. Like those terms, it makes certain schools of thought evidence enough that the student is a threat.

Comments

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I knew the weakness of my argument as I wrote it. But in this case, there is no reason for him not to have used "Moslems" or "radical Moslems" if he wanted to make the distinction. It was peculiar enough that I think he was pushing his agenda with the term.

[untoward.livejournal.com]

I think that he took the connotations into account in choosing his vocabulary, just as you did when choosing not to use the word. His politics are served by using it, where yours aren't. This is ultimately a case where the real difference is in what you believe, and pointing out the language seems silly to me.

If he had said Moslems I think it would have been just as bad as Islamists, because it paints the defining characteristic of these people as religious and not their methods. The flaw being that not all Moslems... etc. If you'd called him on that, I'd be more inclined to agree. But of course he wants to paint them as enemies of freedom. There are lots of people who do. You can't begrudge them their vocabulary choices in doing so, because really they're just being effective in what they do, even if what they do is abhorrent to you!

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Yes and when you are disagreeing with someone, you call them on their rhetoric, especially if it's effective.

Ultimately what galled me about the situation was the way the media allowed their news void to be filled by people with axes to grind and, because they needed time filled, the hosts weren't calling people like the man in question on the fact that they were not bringing any new information to the table. I like to think that if I were news editor and there was nothing to announce, I would say, "Okay, we'll fill everyone in on the half hour instead of pre-empting all other agendas." Talk about giving the terrorists what they want.

[briseur.livejournal.com]

It's all other agenda. The singular is agensum. I'll see you tomorrow