At 03:30 PM 3/1/2012, Alan Rudy wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
>
> > answer is too vauge to understand.
> >
> > insurgent as vocabulary where? what discipline? profession? social
> > movement literature? as social movement participants use them? media?
> >
>
>That's exactly the point. In common usage these days, I think, "insurgent"
>implies terrorist opposing our will, power and society. It is obfuscatory
>because, in common usage (usage strategically set by particular gov't and
>media talking heads/writing hands), the diversity and specificity of the
>various uses of the term are bracketed.
>
> >
> > state's rights? out of context, i don't understand how to is jargon.
> >
>
>Is the problem that you have a specific definition of the word jargon that
>doesn't jibe with applying it to a short phrase most often used to veil
>racist, sexist and classist intent? Is jargon different from code, I
>guess, is the question. I see them as overlapping. Codes and connotations
>are part and parcel of the strategic situatedness of the use of all jargon
>as I see it.
>
> >
> > what is id, ego, superego an example of? properly used technical
> > language or obfuscatory jargon.
> >
>
>All three were obfuscatory jargon, I should have been more clear. The Id =
>The It, The Ego = The I, Superego = The Super I ... the traditional
>translation only serves to get in the way of everyday English language
>readers... as it did me the first time.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)