2005's Politically In correct Words/Phrases

Laurence Horn laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Fri Dec 23 04:57:21 UTC 2005

>In a message dated 12/22/05 10:54:13 AM, Bapopik at AOL.COM writes:
>>  1. Misguided Criminals for Terrorist:  The BBC attempts to strip  away all
>>  emotion by using what it considers 'neutral' descriptions when  describing
>>  those who carried out the bombings in the London Tubes.  The  rub:  the
>>  professed
>>  intent of these 'misguided criminals' was to kill,  without warning, as
>>  many
>>  innocents as possible (which is the common definition  for the term,
>>  terrorist).
>Then Timothy McVay (McVey?)


>  was a terrorist? or not? Maybe a terrorist is
>somebody who tries to strike terror into people through random acts
>of violence?
>Whereas the London bombers were motivated by punishing what they saw as a
>corrupt society (and T.M. was motivated by punishing what he saw as a corrupt
>society)? Or what? But Americans (whose intent "was to kill, without
>warning, as
>many innocents as possible) were "terrorists" during World War II in that our
>ancestors firebombed Dresden and A-bombed Japan?
>My point is NOT to bash America, but simply to suggest that maybe TERRORIST
>in its vagueness, emotional power, and suggestion of definition-by-motive is a
>horribly imprecise word, in the end, to use about anybody--my "freedom
>fighter" is your "terrorist"

there's also "commando" (long before the popularization of the
adverbial version, as in "going ___")


More information about the Ads-l mailing list