As I said, I'm not criticising your use of the word, or your comment. I just pointed out, as it was relevant, that I find the word to be generally objectionable.
The word is commonly thrown at those who align with a view that is deemed to be indefensible by some/many. Sadly for Hair Donald, too much of what he is says is indefensible. When is the vote, so this circus can be done and dusted ??
If anything, language is used as a weapon of the right, case in point numerous far right bloggers like Joshua Bonehill or Tommy Robinson (who is currently getting swatted into the long grass by Gary Lineker) who post copious amounts of anti-Muslim and/or anti-immigrant rhetoric every single day yet hide behind the defence of "But I never said nuffink racist Guv" - because posting a tsunami of material that depicts a specific group in a negative light, most of which is riddled with outright lies. For example Bonehill is responsible for that photo doing the rounds on social media saying a historic British church has been turned into a mosque, as well as putting up posters around Croydon falsely claiming a six-year old had been kidnapped by an "Asian grooming gang" - in both cases were outright lies, as the church in the photo is still an active Christian church while the photo of the "kidnapped" girl was nicked from a professional photographer's Flickr account. Those are examples of a weaponised use of language because those are designed to generate threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards a specific group - which is the legal definition of racism as written in the Public Order Act 1986.
Exactly, and it's generally used as a lazy, unsubstantiated attempt to demonstrate such indensibility. Ie, 'i will demonstrate the depth of your fallacy and of your immorality', and demonstrate that I am both logically correct, and holding the moral high ground,mby calling you an apologist. It doesnt wash with me. To me it's at best meaningless.
No, they are an example of lies. Lieing using conventional words, is not the same thing as inventing new words to be used specifically for the purpose of misleading, and condemning.
It has meaning. And again, Hair Donald has too often been the exemplar for the term during his presidential campaign.
He just doesnt know when to stop. Watched his speech at that dinner last night. Was coming across really well, then took it too far and started getting boeed. Instead of taking the hint and wrapping it up while he was still ahead, he just ploughed on as the boos god louder and louder. I think his mrs is an absoloute doll btw.
She should be, she was a model. I expect she'll have some interesting career options after this campaign is over.
I reckon she's going to divorce him tbh. No eye contact, nothing. If you're reading gorgeous, i'll look after you * * you'll have to supply the money obvs
She's got the perfect excuse now and can wash her hands of him. The pre-nup will prevent her discussing him too, which is a bonus. She doesn't have to make up excuses for his behaviour or openly condemn him, but she can't be pulled up for it, either. If I was involved in that industry then I'd try to get her to front a show about positive immigration stories. Real American dream stuff, focusing on those working their way up from the bottom to succeed. Trump would lose his mind!
The right certainly invent new words to demonise: on one side of the coin you see those who don't agree with them being described as"PC", "do-gooders", or members of the "human rights brigade", while on the other side there is the obvious misuse of the word "Islamist" when what they are describing is a terrorist. Meanwhile, in terms of what Bonehill et al get up to... GODWIN'S LAW VIOLATION ALERT The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. - Josef Goebbels Not only does that perfectly describe the likes of Bonehill to a tee, but all manner of other things in the modern British political sphere, from Blair claiming Iraq had WMDs, to the Metropolitan Police claiming they challenged Jean Charles de Menezes to stop and he jumped the ticket barrier, to Angela Eagle claiming Corbyn supporters threw a brick through her constituency office, and so many things between.
Ive got no idea who or what Bonehill is, and I have no interest in finding out. Neither do I find Goebells' quote of particular application to the "English leadership". There are idiots and liars the world over. The word 'apologist' has no equivelant that i'm aware of in the english language. It is a modern invention of a modern movement of suppresion of free thought. It seeks to claim to a) refute an argument and b) demonstrate the moral repugnance of the subject and the commentator, all in one blow. In fact the word merely represents ignorance and suppresion. It is a vaccous and malevolant word that promotes nothing but ignorance, prejudice, intolerance and subjegation. Even its own construction is ignorant, as it uses the word "apology" in a completely inappropriate way. Furthermore, it has connetations of sectarian aggresion and backwardness. If there is one word that encapsulates the dumbing down and regression of modern society, it is this word. It is an abhorrance to the english language, an abhorrance to reason and to civilised discussion, and an abhorrance to humanity.
It's a 2nd century word that owes it's origins to the ancient Greek legal system. An equivalent English word would be defender.
