USA Today carried an article about people getting upset because the president hasn't identified any of the happenings or people connected with ISIS as radical Islam or radical Muslims. The article went on to tell what the president has said about terrorism. He has used words such as "repulsive acts," "disgraceful," "terrible," and "horrific," along with other extreme descriptions of the acts and people of ISIS. But, "radical Islam" and "radical Muslims" he has not used.
I know it's true that people can get caught up in semantics. I have seen that happen before. I knew one person who would not accept the words "I'm sorry" from her children because they were not sorry individuals. They had to use the words, "I apologize" for her not to spin into a tirade. Even then, the mother didn't always accept the apology.
Words can trip people up if they want to be obstinate. But, it's like the play The Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone but the king can see what's happening. To quote Romeo from Romeo and Juliet, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would be as sweet." Words are all equal. It is society that gives assignments such as "profanity" to certain words. Ever wonder what the difference among "shit," "excrement," and "feces" is? None at all. Society just assigns the value of "offensive" to one of the terms for no good reason.
In the president's case, I would rather hear precise, descriptive adjectives used than some buzzword expression any day. It shows a stronger degree of condemnation of violent acts than some formulaic expression applied by a particular political or religious persuasion. People need to get over themselves when it comes to word specificity. Does it fit a big picture or not? Seriously!
No comments:
Post a Comment