|
i'm not quite sure what you're argueing against, xepherys.
i don't see any defense of the whole scale ossification of langauge.
but i don't think it's ironic that polite means citizen in greek. the discourse, the ways of being in a political affiliation (and by political, i mean that which relates to a polity, a self-defined community) are not entirely open to debate. certainly, the mark of a free society is to extend great leeway, and to expect by and large that citizens/participants value that freedom and will not restrict it in others purely for their own comfort. that said, to expect that others will not value your opinion of them is to restrict the possible meaning of community.
perhaps you are okay with a community that simply exists as a sounding box, a place where ideas fly. but i would posit that for a deeper, more affiliative community requires more investment than that. and that investment may cause us to evalute our choices in language. i may not be x, y, or z, but out of respect for those people, i will choose not to use languge that creates miscommunication between us. if you chose to have absolute freedom in your words, go on, do so. but do not be surprised if people choose freely to abandon community with you on the grounds that your communication has suffered.
BTW, if you think 1984 supports your point, you miss Orwell's larger thesis on language and communication. Read his classic essay, "Why I Write" for a more straightforward application of the same ideas.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
|