Page 1 of 1
Political language?
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:39 pm
by lolwhites
Given the recent posts on the threads about the terms pro- and anti-American, maybe we need to ask ourselves what is a legitimate topic for discussion here.
I think we would all agree that statements like "I agree with President Bush's foreign policy" would be too off-topic, while an analysis of the language used by a politician would be worth discussing. Metal's threads appear to be a bit of a grey area.
Personally I think that the original questions were fair enough; they were simply "What do you understand by these terms?", but it could be argued that some of the replies strayed a bit. Where should we draw the line?
Re: Political language?
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:53 pm
by womblingfree
lolwhites wrote:Given the recent posts on the threads about the terms pro- and anti-American, maybe we need to ask ourselves what is a legitimate topic for discussion here.
I think we would all agree that statements like "I agree with President Bush's foreign policy" would be too off-topic, while an analysis of the language used by a politician would be worth discussing. Metal's threads appear to be a bit of a grey area.
Personally I think that the original questions were fair enough; they were simply "What do you understand by these terms?", but it could be argued that some of the replies strayed a bit. Where should we draw the line?
Do we really need another thread about this? I'd suggest combining the pro & anti threads anyways. There is no grey area whatsoever. The original question quite obviously falls under aspects of Applied Linguistics for reasons I've stated in the other TWO threads.
Re: Political language?
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:41 pm
by metal56
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:45 pm
by metal56
But then again:
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
www.mtholyoke.edu /acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:46 pm
by lolwhites
The point of starting this thread was to see if it was possible to have some polite discussion on where to draw the line, with a view to avoiding having future threads pointlessly sidetracked by someone saying "you have no right to be debating such-and-such a topic on this forum". This isn't about Metal's other two threads, it's about establishing where the grey area ceases to be grey.
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:49 pm
by metal56
lolwhites wrote:This isn't about Metal's other two threads, it's about establishing where the grey area ceases to be grey.
Is it in the same place/stage for everyone?
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:13 pm
by womblingfree
lolwhites wrote:The point of starting this thread was to see if it was possible to have some polite discussion on where to draw the line, with a view to avoiding having future threads pointlessly sidetracked by someone saying "you have no right to be debating such-and-such a topic on this forum". This isn't about Metal's other two threads, it's about establishing where the grey area ceases to be grey.
I don't think there are any grey areas. Applied linguistics and all it incompasses should be discussed here.
Posts are titled accordingly so if what's being discussed doesn't interest you then go to a thread that does.
Joining in discussions that you disagree with and have nothing to contribute to, or don't understand, then saying they should be banned/moved is silly.
Applied linguistics tackles issues of language in regards to; language spread, World Englishes, curriculum development, English as a lingua franca, colonialism, imperialism, post-colonialism, post-imperialism, gender, immigration, multiculturalism, race, discourse analysis and a whole host of other issues. One cannot go about even reading on these issues, let alone discussing them, without discussing political implications.
To claim that applied linguistics should never be discussed in political terms is to misunderstand and misrepresent the field.
If you see anything you
think is completely irrelevant and the level of discussion would seem to support this view then pm a mod and see if they agree with you rather than trolling for a response.
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:10 am
by lolwhites
Is it in the same place/stage for everyone?
Probably not, which is why it would have been helpful if toeflsmeagle had actually pointed out which posts he or she thought were off topic, rather than telling us we shouldn't have discussed it. Having said that, womble is quite right to point out that that's what moderators are for. It would still have been nice to try and establish
some consensus, though no doubt if there's no point in trying, then this thread will die a natural death as it sinks down the forum.
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 am
by metal56
lolwhites wrote:Probably not, which is why it would have been helpful if toeflsmeagle had actually pointed out which posts he or she thought were off topic, rather than telling us we shouldn't have discussed it. quote]
I think toeflsmeagle was doing exactly what many Americans are doing recently, trying to claim that even the discusiion of the word "anti-american" is an anti-American act.
They will not shut me up.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:35 pm
by metal56
Could "anti-American" be fit weel into this paragraph?
""Descriptivist" appears to be a label like "Liberal" or "Christian" or "Counter-revolutionary" that gets tacked on to some group of people of whom the speaker disapproves. It's a private label that means whatever you intend it to mean, like Humpty Dumpty's "Glory". It is a political term, or a moral term, but not a linguistic term. Unless you believe that grammar is a political issue or a moral issue, in which case we part company, because I don't. "
John Lawler
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/ ... ining.html