I totally agree!! :) I think the term is used way too often and the definition is not what is being communicated...Hitler and everything that surrounds the man is what is invoked. These people know that...They're educated and know the impacked terms have on people...It's just another way to spin issues and redirect the American people's attenion...It's a slizzy way to conduct business...I don't know how these folks can look at themselves in the mirror or even sleep at night! They know better...They must think the end justifies the means, but I would argue the American people would beg to differ...If you have to play dirty to win over someone, who have you really won over?
I've used the word to describe (mainly) the Bush administration, and personally when I use it I'm not trying to evoke Hitler, Mussolini, or any other particular person or set of events. If I use the word 'fascist', I'm usually talking about the style of government, and that's all I intend. I agree that it has more connotations that that, and I also agree that it's too often used in inappropriate ways, or specifically in the way described above. It's a problematic word, but it is sometimes the right one
( ... )
The dictionary definition of the word is not the only thing that matters. Words carry connotations, and their value in communication cannot be divorced from these. What you intend to communicate is irrelevant in the end... what matters is what you actually communicate. You can't have it both ways and pretend the connotation isn't there... if moving towards fascism is disturbing, then why is it disturbing? Most people would agree that it's disturbing and could answer this question, but their answer would reveal that they don't understand the word the way you say you intend it.
The point is, most people who throw around this word (consciously or subconsciously) know that: they know how people will interpret it, and that it's going to make a larger impression on people for that reason, but then they can point to the dictionary definition and claim innocence. It's a classic tool of advertising and political demagoguery, but it's not honest conversation. It's manipulative and disingenuous.
You're absolutely right, but I'm not aware of any other word that works equally well in the context. There are plenty of words equally mired in their connotations, but that doesn't mean that they should never be used for fear of conveying the wrong information. It certainly makes them suspect, both as the one trying to communicate and the one trying to understand someone else's communication, but saying that a word should never be used because it's often used in an exploitative way is overly draconian
( ... )
I salute you and the people you speak with, digitalpoetry. I have *never* heard the word "Fascism" used with anything approaching its mid-20th century definition, except in a history class covering the mid 20th century. I am glad to learn that there exists a context and an audience that understands the word in its pre-'68 meaning.
I would argue that the word no longer means what it once meant. It's like "liberal". Who has any idea what the word means anymore? Each speaker means something different.
Sorry as I am to point this out, the post ou quote is flawed on the grounds that it equals Fascism and Nazism. It is correct that Nazism is a kind of Fascism, but while all Nazis are Fascists, not all Fascists are Nazis. Also Genocide is linked with Nazism, not necessarily with Fascism. Fascism is also defined as holding social darwinist views, but Genocide does not necessarily need to result from that, though it is possible and even probable.
I just would like people to make this finer point, as I do think it is rather counterproductive to criticize people for using some notion incorrectly while at the same time revealing that you don't really know what you're talking about either.
epilogue: This made me remember one of my favourite scenes in 'Birds of America',though, where Peter (the hero) meditates about people's incorrect and arbitrary use of the term 'Nazi', and comes to the conclusion that the only persons one might rightfully call Nazis would be Hitler and the like - but then Hitler wouldn't mind being called a Nazi, would
( ... )
Comments 12
Reply
Reply
The point is, most people who throw around this word (consciously or subconsciously) know that: they know how people will interpret it, and that it's going to make a larger impression on people for that reason, but then they can point to the dictionary definition and claim innocence. It's a classic tool of advertising and political demagoguery, but it's not honest conversation. It's manipulative and disingenuous.
Reply
Reply
I would argue that the word no longer means what it once meant. It's like "liberal". Who has any idea what the word means anymore? Each speaker means something different.
Reply
It is correct that Nazism is a kind of Fascism, but while all Nazis are Fascists, not all Fascists are Nazis.
Also Genocide is linked with Nazism, not necessarily with Fascism. Fascism is also defined as holding social darwinist views, but Genocide does not necessarily need to result from that, though it is possible and even probable.
I just would like people to make this finer point, as I do think it is rather counterproductive to criticize people for using some notion incorrectly while at the same time revealing that you don't really know what you're talking about either.
epilogue: This made me remember one of my favourite scenes in 'Birds of America',though, where Peter (the hero) meditates about people's incorrect and arbitrary use of the term 'Nazi', and comes to the conclusion that the only persons one might rightfully call Nazis would be Hitler and the like - but then Hitler wouldn't mind being called a Nazi, would ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment