ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
There's a disturbing trend of lexical dishonesty. To be fair, it's not deliberate - most people engaging in it are rather ignorant of the fact that it's happening. Part of the problem is simply that we (humans) feel the need to have convenient terms of aggrandizement, and when they are difficult to find, our brain's lazy word-association powers start to coopt terms that don't really mean what they intend.
Case in point: over the past decade or so, there's been an enormous number of headlines, from blogs to well-established news publications, denouncing the dangers of "fundamentalist" religion. But to quote Inigo, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." What people really seem to want to say when they use the word "fundamentalism" is more along the lines of "extreme literalism" or "zealotry". Fundamentalism is actually sort of the opposite. The real Fundamentalist Christian movement was actually started for the purpose of uniting the various (often bickering) Christian sects and denominations into one united political voice, by defining the "fundamentals", or bare-bones basic core ideals, that all Christians share - mostly revolving around acknowledging two things: one, that Jesus was real, and two, that he died for humanity's sins (two beliefs, by the way, that I as an atheist, don't share, but I digress...). By focusing on the very basic, most benign, and very lowest common denominators, rather than the extremist, literalist edge cases (like dancing with snakes, stoning gays, and making women shut up in public), it allowed all sorts of different Christians to find a common bond. So how did "fundamentalism" become synonymous with extremist lunatic? Well, in part because some of the leaders in the Fundamentalist Christian movement were themselves extremist lunatics, and therefore people simply began to associate the word with the lunatics. But in reality, it's not what they mean.
And this brings us to the newest linguistic misuse: "Radical Islam". Again, what people really mean to say is "fucked-up extremist jihadi Islamism". Radicalism is actually defined by two characteristics:
1 - a movement of revolutionary change that is started by the "roots" (radical/radix/root), or what we in America often refer to as the "grass roots" - the common people, rather than the elites
2 - a movement of revolutionary change that is abhorred by the traditionalist elements of society, because the change the movement seeks often tramples on the most treasured traditionalist ideals
If we look at what society is typically calling "radical Islam", it fails both facets of the definition. The militant jihadi extremist movements are often headed by political or religious elites, and they are ultra-traditional. These militant extremists aren't seeking core revolutionary change - they want to *return* to the most traditionalist ideals. In fact, by the true definition of the word "radical", radicals are the Muslims (or ex-Muslims) who are most critical of the traditionalist elites, who don't fear pointing out the extremely disturbing issues with Islamism, and who want to change (and even overturn) traditional Islamic power structures to pluralize and secularize them. On that account, it would seem as if we actually need *more* radical Muslims.
So this is where I point out that my problem isn't with the words themselves (or the misuse thereof). You'd have to be a pretty pedantic philological Nazi to care that much about mere words. Instead, the problem I have with people misusing these terms is that it indicates the people aren't really thinking deeply about the subjects. Instead, they are mostly parroting some self-appointed "pundits", most of whom seem to be pretty ignorant themselves (as evidenced by their misuse of the words to begin with). And I have to say, it's pretty troubling to realize how superficially people are thinking about these profoundly important issues.
Case in point: over the past decade or so, there's been an enormous number of headlines, from blogs to well-established news publications, denouncing the dangers of "fundamentalist" religion. But to quote Inigo, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." What people really seem to want to say when they use the word "fundamentalism" is more along the lines of "extreme literalism" or "zealotry". Fundamentalism is actually sort of the opposite. The real Fundamentalist Christian movement was actually started for the purpose of uniting the various (often bickering) Christian sects and denominations into one united political voice, by defining the "fundamentals", or bare-bones basic core ideals, that all Christians share - mostly revolving around acknowledging two things: one, that Jesus was real, and two, that he died for humanity's sins (two beliefs, by the way, that I as an atheist, don't share, but I digress...). By focusing on the very basic, most benign, and very lowest common denominators, rather than the extremist, literalist edge cases (like dancing with snakes, stoning gays, and making women shut up in public), it allowed all sorts of different Christians to find a common bond. So how did "fundamentalism" become synonymous with extremist lunatic? Well, in part because some of the leaders in the Fundamentalist Christian movement were themselves extremist lunatics, and therefore people simply began to associate the word with the lunatics. But in reality, it's not what they mean.
And this brings us to the newest linguistic misuse: "Radical Islam". Again, what people really mean to say is "fucked-up extremist jihadi Islamism". Radicalism is actually defined by two characteristics:
1 - a movement of revolutionary change that is started by the "roots" (radical/radix/root), or what we in America often refer to as the "grass roots" - the common people, rather than the elites
2 - a movement of revolutionary change that is abhorred by the traditionalist elements of society, because the change the movement seeks often tramples on the most treasured traditionalist ideals
If we look at what society is typically calling "radical Islam", it fails both facets of the definition. The militant jihadi extremist movements are often headed by political or religious elites, and they are ultra-traditional. These militant extremists aren't seeking core revolutionary change - they want to *return* to the most traditionalist ideals. In fact, by the true definition of the word "radical", radicals are the Muslims (or ex-Muslims) who are most critical of the traditionalist elites, who don't fear pointing out the extremely disturbing issues with Islamism, and who want to change (and even overturn) traditional Islamic power structures to pluralize and secularize them. On that account, it would seem as if we actually need *more* radical Muslims.
So this is where I point out that my problem isn't with the words themselves (or the misuse thereof). You'd have to be a pretty pedantic philological Nazi to care that much about mere words. Instead, the problem I have with people misusing these terms is that it indicates the people aren't really thinking deeply about the subjects. Instead, they are mostly parroting some self-appointed "pundits", most of whom seem to be pretty ignorant themselves (as evidenced by their misuse of the words to begin with). And I have to say, it's pretty troubling to realize how superficially people are thinking about these profoundly important issues.
Trumping up the Evangelical Vote
Let's face it, Trump wouldn't know a bible if one smacked him across the face. His pathetic attempts to appeal to the evangelical vote have become infamous jokes and memes. Before visiting churches in order to garner votes, the last time he saw the inside of a church was probably when he was getting married to his third mail order bride. As it turns out, Trump didn't have to humiliate himself to get the evangelical vote after all. Despite there being several candidates this year who either were clergy (Huckabee) or sons of clergy (Cruz), and plenty with serious evangelical street cred (Carson, Perry and Santorum), the lion's share of evangeli
Irony
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/25/creator-of-anti-planned-parenthood-videos-faces-felony-charge/
For (what seems like) ages now, the "Center for Medical Progress" has been claiming that Planned Parenthood was secretly trafficking in human embryos for profit, and their "under cover" footage has made its way, in various states of edit, all over the internet, managing even to play center stage in Republican presidential debates. Texas assigned various state groups, including the Houston DA and the Rangers, to investigate any criminal wrong-doing on the part of Planned Parenthood. A grand jury in Houston was subsequen
Accepting Progress
In 2010, 48% of Americans opposed gay marriage, while only 42% favored allowing homosexuals to marry (according to Pew Research). Only five years later, that trend has completely reversed: only 39% oppose it today, vs. 55% favor allowing it. The various anti-gay marriage lawsuits started by conservatives to once and for all shut down state-level gay marriage, completely backfired when the Supreme Court made gay marriage the law of the land. Instead of solidifying sentiment against gay marriage, as conservatives had hoped, the prolonged media exposure created a national dialog that resulted in the public being more sympathetic to the fairness
Arguing Absurdities
Creationists, particularly the young-earth evangelicals, claim that humans evolving from an ancestral primate line (or, more colloquially as they would put it, from monkeys) is totally absurd.
But what's their alternative?
An invisible guy shaped a dummy out of mud. Then he magically breathed life into the mud dummy. Then the dummy got lonely, so the invisible guy cast a spell so the dummy would sleep. While asleep, the invisible guy magically removed one of the mud dummy's ribs, and ... somehow, without any real details... turned the rib into a woman. Then a magical talking snake convinced the woman to eat a magical fruit of knowledge, whi
Featured in Groups
© 2016 - 2024 PyrrhusiVictoria
Comments5
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Nice article. Puts me in-mind of Harris' point that the fundamentals are only a problem when the fundamentals themselves are a problem. Do you agree with this assertion?