If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Comment: Language, Criticism and the Bush Administration
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Something I saw today made me want to put this up for discussion.
The Bush Administration's use of language, particular with regard to references to 'relevance' and associated terms. It appears that they have adopted over a sustained period a policy of denunciation of critics, by using the language of relevance not so much to counter their points, but to exclude them from the right to an opinion in the first place.
Examples of this include this article in response to the recent comments of Jimmy Carter;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6675557.stm
And the famous call by Bush for the U.N to act on Iraq, or 'risk becoming irrelevant';
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2253605.stm
And its not just specific to the actual use of the word, they've been doing it all along since 9/11, for example Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary was quoted as stating (in response to a comedian's comment) that;
Full statement in context can be found here http://www.slate.com/id/2149377/
I was just wondering what others thought of this.
The Bush Administration's use of language, particular with regard to references to 'relevance' and associated terms. It appears that they have adopted over a sustained period a policy of denunciation of critics, by using the language of relevance not so much to counter their points, but to exclude them from the right to an opinion in the first place.
Examples of this include this article in response to the recent comments of Jimmy Carter;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6675557.stm
And the famous call by Bush for the U.N to act on Iraq, or 'risk becoming irrelevant';
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2253605.stm
And its not just specific to the actual use of the word, they've been doing it all along since 9/11, for example Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary was quoted as stating (in response to a comedian's comment) that;
And that's why—there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party—they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.
Full statement in context can be found here http://www.slate.com/id/2149377/
I was just wondering what others thought of this.
0
Comments
Formal politics yes, but I think in this day and age we need to think of politics as being not just voting and Westminister, but as a process at the local level in which we are involved every day as citizens and individuals.
Well that's the good thing about things like this. It's more about what people actually write, and less about who writes it (I say less because eventually everyone gets to know people a bit and can second guess their opinions on things, or refer to things they wrote a year ago as "evidence" against them).
I agree up to a point; the only thing is that sometimes I think (and I include myself firmly in this) by talking lots about a great many things we can convince ourselves;
1) That we are doing more than we are.
2) That we know more than we do.
I don't think that anyone is fooling themselves that they are doing anything by debating online. I think people are making an effort to better understand the argument and expose themselves to different arguments, which can only be a good thing in terms of having a politically informed population capable of understanding rational arguments. They may be as mis-informed as the next personabout the facts, but generally, I think that they will at least understand the argument better, if not necessarily the facts surrounding the argument, if you get what I mean.