In a tyranical dictatorship, yes. In an enlightened and progressive society, no. The increased used of the word is a symbol of the rapidly increasing tyranical grip that the fashionable 'rights' movements, imposed on us by the media and radical pressure groups, have on our culture.
I'd be interested in an example of it being misused in the way you suggest. Rights movements arise usually because people are being misused or discrimatd against. I can't think of one that has not had a positive effect nor a recent one which has even achieved its aims, never mind imposing anything.
Sorry - what is this "dumbing down" phrase that you use? Was this phrase also being used in the 2nd century? Sorry but I only recognize words and phrases which were already in use in the South East of England on 16th March 1979. The English language changes and evolves all the time. It's not like "real" English was all agreed upon by some parish council meeting in the home counties which was chaired by Jesus and Mary Whitehouse. English, unlike French, is a "bottom-up" language where usage alone will lead to a word's acceptance and inclusion in the dictionary. No doubt at all that many of the words you just used in that post had scared conservatives tut and grumble about these silly new-fangled words back when they were created (which may be far more recent than you might think). And yes - even the words women use count. Just more of that feminist fascism which is crippling and paralyzing you, I'm afraid. Sorry about that. Be strong.
You've completely missed the point lenny. None of your sentences are relevant to what I've correctly pointed out.
Just when you thought the voting public couldn't get any dumber, I've seen that they well and truly can - as now there are people saying that, because Hillary Clinton is the epitome of corruption in Washington, you should vote Trump because you can vote him out in four years. What an utterly moronic stance to take. Apart from the obvious issue that following this stance means four years of President Trump, which in itself is sixteen terrifying scenarios rolled into one, the basis of the argument is that one form of corruption is better than another - because essentially the argument is non-Washington corruption is better than Washington corruption, which is nonsensical gibberish of the worst kind.
Was genuinely taken a back on Thursday when Question Time was on and people in the audience (and it seemed like a lot) applauded Conrad Black when he said people in the USA should vote for Trump. I am not a Clinton fan by any means but can not believe that people do not understand that she is the least **** option. The man is so dangerous in so many ways.
Just shows you how toxic the Clinton dynasty is, that people could think this way. Whatever happens, the USA has to look in the mirror and realise that a root and branch overhaul of their political classes is now needed ASAP.
I doubt that will happen. The US will just get more polarised - and I don't think many realise how polarised their society is already. Even when I did my massive road trip in the late 90s I was shocked what they were coming out with on right wing radio. I guess those views have just got more mainstream. The fact that I don't think there is anything that Trump can do or say that will stop millions voting for him is quite frightening.
That's the thing with American politics, there's no debate, just two groups firmly entrenched in their bunkers yelling at each other - and that's gotten much worse than usual with this election, for example the Trumpists throwing around the term "Killary" and falsely claiming WikiLeaks has exposed that she sold weapons to ISIS - except there isn't anything on Wikileaks that says anything like that. Then again, America is a country where the word "liberal" is seen as an insult...which is an example of those on the right using words as a weapon, last time I checked, but then again I'm a leftie do-gooder...
As I have said, every political party has a core percentage of the electorate that will vote for them no matter what. But they are not large enough in number to win an election.
That exposes the real problem with the American political system, though: by sticking to the electoral college system, even though it is at least three centuries out of date, this creates an atmosphere where people can get borderline militant about voting for their party no matter who they put up on the podium - and also an atmosphere where the election basically hangs on how four states out of fifty vote. In fact I'll go one step further: so many problems about the US boil down to them slavishly sticking to a piece of parchment written in the late 18th century as if it were holy scripture, which has led to certain groups holding up the Constitution as the ultimate trump card - not least the NRA and their decades of misquoting the Second Amendment, which means any attempt to have a rational and informed debate about gun control gets stomped on by an irrational and uninformed pro-gun nutjob every single time. Yet here's the issue: most other countries with a constitution don't stick to the first one they wrote, they actually draft new ones because we aren't living in 1886 anymore and the world has changed in ways that Thomas Jefferson and company had no way of predicting - hell, I doubt FDR could have predicted the ways the world would have changed, and he was POTUS 75 years ago rather than the best part of 250 years ago. For example, since 1776... France has had fourteen constitutions - it would have been sixteen, but a slight case of Revolution got in the way Greece have had thirteen constitutions Spain have had ten constitutions Russia has had seven constitutions, eight if you count a period in the late 70s where Russia had one constitution while the USSR had another Italy has had seven constitutions Austria has had seven constitutions - worryingly, they had ones in 1848, 1848/9 and 1849 Germany has had at six constitutions (eight if you count East Germany's) Turkey has had four constitutions It looks especially bad when you realise that even Vatican City has had a constitution drafted since then.
Oh. I thought you were saying that the word "apologist" and its use was meaningless, possibly due to the fact that its use has changed recently (?) partly due to political correctness. I think a word that means, basically "someone defending an unpopular or controversial position" is quite a useful word. I only think new words are pointless if there already exists an exact synonym. Though English abounds with synonyms anyway due to its variety of influences and heritage (not that I want to offend any idea you might have of the pure, proud Englishman who has been tending his lawn and playing cricket in a nice, white, male way since 368 BCE). Don't blame me anyway. I, like you, am living under the repressive, vicious, tyranny of feminism which is controlling basically everything I do and think. I try my best but the fact is that the world is clearly run by and for feminists who make my life hell everyday and control what I think and say. You know how it is. There's a tabloid panic about an individual woman doing some thing or other on Twitter literally *every* year or so. It's impossible to live like this, never mind think coherently and free from the threat of violence. But, like a member of the Haitian slave revolt or a Catholic in 17th century England or a Jew in Europe in the 1940s I WILL do my best to survive and fight this tyranny. My struggle is real. Films will be made about me. Films called "Surviving The Time When A Female Solicitor Sent A Tweet: One White Man's Battle".
Constitutions are indeed a very weird idea. Especially since people then seem to have this idea that they are some eternal truth that must always be adhered to (and its hard to see how/why humans can't naturally gravitate towards this conclusion). It's especially ironic that Americans get all bent out of shape about potential change or deletion to the second amendment. The second amendment. You know - the thing that was added/changed. The thing that, by its very existence, shows that governmental constitutions aren't eternal and set in stone. Especially, maybe, when considering the role/legality/utility of tools that are designed only to kill things. It's ****ing insane.
No, I was saying that the word is an example of the oppression in our society of free thinking, open mindedness, discussion, reason, fairness, justice, progression and common sense, and its preference for close mindedness, prejudice, irrationality, mob power, and the manipulation of the general public. This is not based on a recent change in the usage of the word. It is based on the modern usage, irrespective of any historical meaning attributed to it. That modern usage is as a weapon against reasoned open discussion or fair minded debate, in favour of creating a label, to be applied without any justification, to those representing an alternative argument - usually one which does not in some way scream of political correctness - and to anyone who dares to stand up for it, or seeks to challenge or consider the reasonableness of its dismissal.
Don't worry RobSpur - I'll give you never-ending **** but you're still my favourite racist/misogynist. I often like your comments on football and Spurs. Your tone and comments don't half remind me of the lead character of the book I'm reading, "A Confederacy Of Dunces". Ignatius J Reilly. He's a totally self-important fool who fancies himself something of an intellectual and historian and rails against the modern world and its perceived vulgarity (which actually thrills and fascinates him). it's hard not to have a soft spot for him, despite his being gigantically pompous and absurd. It's a bloody funny book so far.
The word seems to imply two clear things: 1) The person it applies to is defending something/one or an idea 2) The thing/person/idea being defended is controversial That all seems fine to me. Of course it can be used by anyone. When you're at your Klan meetings you might call me a "feminism apologist" and within that context the word would totally work. The worst thing it does is make clear that some things are controversial. I'm sure we can all handle that. So if I say I like roses in my garden it doesn't make sense to say I'm a "rose apologist". If I like weeds in my garden it just tells you something useful to describe me as a "dandelion apologist". It doesn't mean I'm good or bad. It doesn't say that dandelions are good or bad. It does tell you that a) I see no problem with them and b) other people do. That's all.
