I don't get the fuss about calling those bastards radical Islamists. Or radical Muslims. I just don't get it. Who would be upset with terms like radical Christians, or radical Jews? The term "radical" has long since lost its etymological roots in root. Words change in meaning: for example "radical" means something very specific in chemistry about which most people are not even aware. So people can't be objecting to the adjective "radical." It must be "Islam" that's driving them bonkers.
If using the word "Islam" bothers progressives so much, they must be seething with resentment over the first "I" in ISIS.
24 comments:
Nice catch.
I can't believe it been staring at me all this time and I didn't see it.
Is is - heh. It's not even funny though. the coordination between media and democrat party is complete on this issue. NO "radical Islam". It's in the mind-crime handbook.
A man says I'm a woman and we change everything including the language to accommodate.
A radical Islamist says I'm Islamic... Oh, that's crazy talk. Don't listen to that.
Thanks, Lem.
The second paragraph in my link makes it clear why the term "radical Islam" is the least offensive term in view of Islam writ larger. I quote:
radical: Political sense of "reformist" (via notion of "change from the roots") is first recorded 1802 (n.), 1817 (adj.), of the extreme section of the British Liberal party (radical reform had been a current phrase since 1786); meaning "unconventional" is from 1921. U.S. youth slang use is from 1983, from 1970s surfer slang meaning "at the limits of control." Radical chic is attested from 1970; popularized, if not coined, by Tom Wolfe. Radical empiricism coined 1897 by William James (see empiricism).
"Radical Islam" is deviant from Islam because it represents a change from the roots. It doesn't mean "Orthodox Islam."
The appropriate response from any Muslim cleric should be "What would Mohammad say about ISIS?"
I gave one of my plastic reality beers to a young woman in charge of merchandising at a store and she said "rad!"
Isn't rad short for radical?
Yes, it is Lem. According to the Urban Dictionary "rad" is high praise.
If there was a preferable term they (who happen to control that sort of thing) would have come up with something else by now. But the description is so apt, it refuses to be denied.
Lem: The Democrat's preferred term is "jidadist." We heard that several times during Saturday's debate. I remember when that word first hit the mainstream English lexicon. I recall complaints that the word "jihad" was being hijacked and really just referred to a Muslim's duty to uphold Islam -- similar to being "devout." This is backed here. Ironically the Dems are at linguistic war with "devout" Muslims and not with "extreme" or radical Muslims. But this jibes with their dislike for devote Jews and devout Christians.
Makes sense.
ISIL + ISIS.
What's the dif?
Make no mistake: A problem I never have had is calling out jihadism, much less identifying it for what it is.
It's never been a problem, for me, to call out that sort of fanaticism. Jihadism is a particularly ugly version, and not only that--the most pervasive and threatening in our times.
There's no way to be just let alone, as an individual, if very large forces insist on flexing their strengths. The very largest forces throughout history are national governments and international religions.
Rhonda Rousey got TKO'd in her first fight after endorsing Bernie Sanders. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I think we should call the terrorists "Bitter Clingers".
The left goes to war over words. Obama calls it ISIL and so you must do so, too. It is the only approved terminology.
Words, just words.
Republicans are the real radical extremists. All that talk of shrinking our bloated corrupt corny government. That's crazy talk. & way more extreme than head chopping and slaughtering in cold blood at close range execution style total innocents by a religious ideology that cannot be named.
corny = crony.
I think we should call the terrorists "Bitter Clingers".
I just posted some excerpts from The Atlantic long article titled "What ISIS Really wants".
Knowing this enemy is half the battle.
Hmm. So, it comes downs to this: It's not good enough to agree with you. What's required is to agree you with in the same way, for starters.
Hmm. So, it comes downs to this: It's not good enough to agree with you. What's required is to agree you with in the same way, for starters.
At first I took this as a personal dig at me. Then I thought you were directing this at the Democrats at the debate. Then I decided it was directed at all of us.
You got me to thinking, r,l
Post a Comment