usage

Sympathy and empathy   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language usage vocabulary on by

This is a post about word usage, not about the murder of Charlie Kirk, but it started from seeing a lot of online rage about a statement of his. According to Snopes, he once said:

I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That’s a separate topic for a different time.

It’s strange that of all the things he said, this should draw so much anger. If I were cynical, I’d say it’s because people saw an opportunity to pull the first sentence out of context and create a deceptive impression. In this case, cynicism is fully justified.

How much difference is there between sympathy and empathy, anyway?
(more…)

Tech buzzword panic

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language SanityProject technology usage on by

EFF has run a valuable campaign on the risks of leaking metadata to third parties. If you upload a photo to a public website, for instance, the file might contain information on exactly when and where you took the picture. A stalker can make use of the information, especially if you upload photographs wherever you go. If you make a phone call or text message, the associated metadata may get less privacy protection than the what you said or typed. The US government has claimed that warrantless searches of communication metadata, which might identify the sender, receiver, and time of a message, are OK. Unfortunately, this has led some people to think that metadata themselves (I’m standing by “data” as a plural) are evil.
(more…)

A curiously missing word

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged usage vocabulary on by

A few days ago, I started to write something complaining about people who use “white supremacy” when they mean “white supremacism.” Supremacy, I was going to say, is the state of being supreme. Usually they mean the unfounded assertion of being supreme. People who make that claim are supremacists, so the claim should be called supremacism, right? Like “racist” and “racism.”

But my spelling checker complained about the word “supremacism,” so I checked to make sure. Neither Merriam-Webster nor dictionary.com recognizes it as a word, though both recognize “supremacist.” The OED recognizes the word, though, so it’s OK to use it east of the Atlantic.

If one word exists, shouldn’t the other? I’d start a campaign to get it listed in dictionaries, except that “campaigning for supremacism” doesn’t sound so good.

Americans do not have a commander in chief 2

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language usage vocabulary on by

We’re regularly subjected to the obscene notion that the president of the United States is the “commander in chief” of the American people. It’s part of the cult of the presidency, the notion that we live or should live under a powerful ruler. It’s an idea that goes against everything the country was founded on.

The Constitution says: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” If you’re in those categories, then he’s your commander. Otherwise, no. If you’re a civilian employee of the executive branch, he’s your boss, not your commander.
(more…)

Authoritarianism and the control of names

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged language Trump usage on by

Authoritarian regimes control language as a way to control thought. And let’s face it, the United States is well on its way to becoming an authoritarian regime. Congress is asleep. It’s not clear how much the courts can do in the long run. Trump has made it clear that he can rename things at a whim and punish those who don’t use the names he chooses.

He issued a decree that the Gulf of Mexico shall henceforth be called the Gulf of America. The USGS updated its data accordingly, and the change quickly flowed into Google Maps, DuckDuckGo, and other online information sources. More significantly, Trump has banished Associated Press from the Oval Office for not falling into line. AP has said, “As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences,” so it continues to use “Gulf of Mexico” as the primary name.
(more…)

Racist typography 1

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged grammar usage writing on by

It’s gotten incredibly common: in the same sentence in supposedly literate websites, “Black” as a skin color is consistently capitalized, while “brown,” “white,” “yellow” and so on are consistently in lower case, sometimes in the same sentence. The racial discrimination is so obvious it’s plainly intentional. What purpose does it serve?

Is it to tell us that “Black” people are the Master Race, while others are subordinate? That would be silly. Is it to provoke and anger people, so they’ll say something intemperate and open themselves to accusations of racism? I’ve often thought that, but a complex intention like that makes no sense.
(more…)

Has the meaning of “refute” changed?

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language usage vocabulary writing on by

This week I came upon a bizarre claim in an Associated Press article: “The federal law that President Joe Biden signed at the end of 2021 followed allegations of human rights abuses by Beijing against members of the ethnic Uyghur group and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. The Chinese government has refuted the claims as lies and defended its practice and policy in Xinjiang as fighting terror and ensuring stability.” If AP was using the established meaning of “refute,” it was claiming that these allegations were lies and China had proven they were. The article didn’t say what this proof was.

However, it was called to my attention that some dictionaries give a new, second meaning for “refute.” Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: (1) to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. (2) to deny the truth or accuracy of. Dictionary.com, on the other hand, gives two definitions that both entail proof: (1) to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. (2) to prove (a person) to be in error.
(more…)

There’s nothing wrong with these expressions

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged usage vocabulary writing on by

I’ve written a lot of posts on the misuse of words and expressions. For balance, I should mention some that pedants object to, but I don’t. (“Pedant” is defined as someone who objects to usages I don’t object to.)

“I could care less.” The pedant says this should be “I couldn’t care less.” Don’t you understand irony? This is always uttered in a sarcastic tone, and it means something like “I could care less — if I really tried hard.” Do you also object to saying “Big deal!” to dismiss something unimportant?
(more…)

Britannica blunders 1

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language Shakespeare usage vocabulary writing on by

The once-respected name of Britannica has really sunk. In an article on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, they misquote and misinterpret the most famous line of the play, while thinking they’re correcting a misconception.

The most famous line of the play, “Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”, is often misinterpreted. The archaic word wherefore does not mean “where”, but “why”, rendering the modern English translation as “Why are you, Romeo?”

That’s not what the line is! It’s “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” with no comma. Juliet isn’t asking why Romeo exists. She’s asking why he’s Romeo — meaning why he is Romeo Montague, a member of an enemy family. The next lines make this clearer: “Deny thy father and refuse thy name, Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.”
(more…)

What really is a theocracy?

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language usage on by

About a year and a half ago, I wrote about the overbroad use of the term “Fascism” and what it really was or is. Another political designation that gets freely tossed around is “theocracy.” Merriam-Webster defines it as “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.” This is too broad; governments of all kinds have claimed that God guides their heads of state. Listen to traditional patriotic songs, and you’ll hear lots of claims that the leaders act under God’s guidance.
(more…)