= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on When None Dare Urge Restraint - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (118)
Labels such as "freedom" and "enemy" are relative. Attributes such as "cowardice" and "courage" are likewise relative. If soldiers from "our side", fighting for "our cause", sacrificed themselves on suicide missions that inflicted serious harm to the "enemy", all in the name of our "freedom", we'd call them courageous. The "enemy" would call them cowards.
Were the 9/11 attackers cowards? Were they brave patriots? Such labels, formed in the biased eye of the observer, are meaningless.
Thanks, Jack. I hadn't checked the context, either - it makes more sense as a reply here.
That said: "coward" has both a denotation and a connotation, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense to promote usage which undermines the former. Yes, people do ... but we can do better than that. Particularly given that the denotationally-accurate term "fanatic" connotes disapproval as well.
Edit: On reflection, upvoted. Yes, the words have meanings - but when they are used as political weapons, as they are in this context, these meanings are frequently ignored in favor of their political purpose.