8 ms·

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's m

• wreft 10y ago
  "the sad Zeitgeist of our time notwithstanding" This sounds like one of those sentences that sound deep but don't mean anything. Can you explain?
  • sndean 10y ago
    "Even though it seems that words have diminished meaning in our modern society." Or something like that.
  • llamaz 10y ago
    Despite the Zeitgeist [1] of naming things after war or terrorism [2] hopefully words still have meaning [3]. [1]: spirit of the times/current fashion/popular tendencies [2]: which causes war/terrorism to lose meaning because it refers to everything [3]: compare with [2]
  • HSO 10y ago
    I didn't mean to be pompous. My native tongue is German and I didn't know a better word than Zeitgeist for what I wanted to say. I feel that language in general is being used in a different way today than even just a few years ago. Admittedly, I don't have objective measures for this but I know I am not alone in this assessment. Even the Economist recently ran a feature about this lamentable phenomenon.
    • wreft 10y ago
      Thank you. I wasn't trying to be rude either and really appreciate the response!
  • dredmorbius 10y ago
    Zeitgeist has the meaning not only of "the spirit of the times" (literal translation), but of the sense of a binding or constraining dominant ideals and beliefs of a time, which can be viewed as proscribing a cage within which a set of contemporaneously accessible ideas are constrained. The idea was promoted by Albert Szent-Gyorgi in a 1970 book, The Crazy Ape. There's a good overview of the concept in this VSauce2 video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOFQcNZiFk&t=9m43s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOFQcNZiFk&t=9m43s I'm finding the top-level complaint registered, its note, and significance on this discussion overstated and distracting.
• _petronius 10y ago
  There's a really amazing book by Susan Sontag, Illness as Metaphor (and a followup she wrote in the late 80s called "AIDs and its metaphors") which talks about this need to speak about disease as a conflict or fight, or as a foreign invasion or corruption. It's a fascinating book also because it compares the 20th century ways of talking (or not talking) about cancer with how tuberculosis was discussed in the 19th century and before, and both the differences and similarities, especially with regard to a different understanding of how disease operates. People conceptualize their own illness in very different ways. An author I very much respect, Jenny Diski, died recently, and in her final series of essays about her life and her cancer (and impending death), she said at one point, “under no circumstances is anyone to say that I lost a battle with cancer, or that I bore it bravely. I am not fighting, losing, winning, or bearing.”
  • jhbadger 10y ago
    Except that cancer and infectious disease really are conflicts and invasions, no metaphors needed. At the cellular level you really do have cells killing cells based on recognition of whether they are not they are recognized as "self".
    • KC8ZKF 10y ago
      You are defending the metaphor by using metaphors based on the metaphor you are defending.
      • tree_of_item 10y ago
        Recognizing self/other isn't a metaphor, cells really do that.
      • ubernostrum 10y ago
        The other comment says this more briefly, but: it is true that the immune system draws this distinction. Every human cell with a nucleus presents a set of molecules on its surface, and immune system T cells use that to determine whether or not to trigger an immune response (where "immune response" means "kill the cell which presented an unacceptable set of molecules"). Autoimmune diseases occur when immune cells improperly categorize some "self" cells as "non-self" and trigger immune response on them.
• refulgentis 10y ago
  You are sadly witnessing one of the darkest consequences of 9/11. It was such traumatic event for the entire society, due to its stark reminder that we weren't safe, and the modern world hadn't solved every problem, after decades of comfort. There's a feedback cycle of increased fear, leading to unrealistic demands to fix it, leading to "solutions" that are immensely amplified by the media, and the politician's justifications of the solutions. That leads to increased fear...ad nauseum, to the point that you could credibly do a "Exisentially frightening" find and replace for every instance of "terrorism" and "Exisentially frightening (noun)" for terrorist. They're increasingly synonymous, and terrorist is the one losing definitive meaning. I don't blame politics for this. We elect them by popular vote, and don't usually reward them for giving us a stern talking to, rather than addressing our exisential fears. But, they could have avoided the types of solutions they've trumpeted. Solutions that killed tens of thousands of Americans and foreigners, altered the way we live, and wasted trillions of dollars that should have been spent lifting ourselves up. The terrorists won. They've done exactly what we know they wanted: create vast fear in the populace, and impose high economic costs, with relatively small acts committed by madmen. Hopefully we start choosing more reasonable solutions, responsibly fund the ones we've found (the TSA caused multi-day delays in major cities this summer), and stop demanding the impossible from our politicians. Popular opinion about Middle East military action is tortured logic. You can't be mad about Iraq, Libya, and Syria. They express the full spectrum of action we can take — at least, as far as the general public perceives it. There's interesting distinctions, but few are well-informed enough to have that be informing their opinion.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • reddytowns 10y ago
    I think it's less because of fear, and more because of hate and anger that drives people to act the way they do and the laws after 9/11. Yes, everyone claims the new laws are to "keep people safe", but they all seem to follow the same pattern of trying even harder to catch criminals, punish them more when we've caught them, and lower the standard of evidence necessary for conviction. After all, most people in the USA don't live near high value targets, and I doubt most people are afraid of terrorism in their day to day lives (the occasional highly unusual occurrence being the exception). This, "the terrorists won" meme is getting old, and I don't believe is true. If you read up on ISIS extremists, they believe their destiny is to take over the world, ex. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... The truth is terrorist have engulfed themselves in anger and hate, and as the saying goes, hate breeds hate. That's what is happening to the USA. People are too embarrassed to admit it. After all, the modern enlightened individual has grown past hatred, right? They leave such petty emotions behind, don't they? So, no one wins. Not the terrorists, nor the people... well besides a few power hungry elitists who should be lined up against a wall and shot (just kidding), but I think you see my point. It's just a instinctual lizard brain response to a instinctual lizard brain action. And the more we deny we hate, the more it controls us.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• tominous 10y ago
  The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important. So it is incumbent on people who use these metaphors to remember that in society the "parts" (i.e. each individual) do have value. Otherwise it's too easy to turn things around and say, "Terrorists are like disease, we must kill them all; that fast-growing ethnic group is like cancer, we must cut it out." I don't blame the author in this case as it's a very personal account, but readers should be sure to keep the distinction in mind.
  • smallnamespace 10y ago
    The biggest difference between individuals and societies: our cells cannot propagate or survive on their own, whereas individuals can. As an analogy for society, a colony of bacteria or fungi would serve better than the human body.
    • dredmorbius 10y ago
      An individual completely separated from modern society would perform quite poorly. Or somewhat more poetically: No man is an island.
      • rtpg 10y ago
        A small group can splinter off and survive. My arm cannot survive on its own
        • dredmorbius 10y ago
          A small group of people is not going to survive at a modern, first-world, technological level of civilisation, providing itself with oil, coal, electricity, silicon chips, cotton, synthetics, pharmaceuticals, food, lumber, iron, steel, aluminium, glass, etc., etc. It might manage to provide for itself at a ~1650 level of subsistence, in a favourable climate. Modern civilisation is a team sport.
• zwieback 10y ago
  After reading the article I thought it was a great metaphor. Agreed that in the US too many things are "war on x" but I felt this was a good use of the word "terrorist". I grew up in Germany during the Baader Meinhof days so to me terrorism has a specific, slightly different meaning to its use here in the US now but words have different meanings in different contexts.
• hogrammer 10y ago
  First it was "Depression", then it was "Lewy Body Disease". Everyone wants to find blame or causes during a tragic death. The evidence points to auto-erotic asphyxiation but of course you won't raise many dollars at a charity fundraiser for that.
• eveningcoffee 10y ago
  Indeed, having seen the movie The War Within, I have to agree with you strongly. The title does not resonate with the expectations to the content.
• kafkaesq 10y ago
  I think her intent was simply to invoke empathy for what happened to her husband (to try to put us in his shoes). It wasn't meant as any kind of a broader social or political metaphor.
• rifung 10y ago
  > What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? Looking up one of the definitions of terrorism, I see "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". This being the case, I think it's more or less appropriate here, since the article says, "I was getting accustomed to the two of us spending more time in reviewing our days. The subjects though were starting to fall predominantly in the category of fear and anxiety" On the other hand, I suppose you could argue there is no coercion being involved. In any case, I don't think the title was meant to link this to anything political but rather just an actor causing fear.
• late2part 10y ago
  If you don't empathize with the terror this disease caused her, and her metaphor to 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, there's nothing I or anyone else can say or explain that will make you understand.
• cylinder 10y ago
  I came to the comments hoping someone would address this. I'm American and totally agree. This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Call the networks "organized crime." Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network of terrorists working together," then say that! Words are powerful and in America we are pretty bad about using them incorrectly (see: entrée as a main course!).
  • eridius 10y ago
    I looked up entrée, and the Wikipedia page says that the American usage of the word is actually older than the contemporary French meaning of a dish served before the main course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e
    • kgwgk 10y ago
      The contemporary American meaning (the main course) doesn't seem really older than the contemporary French meaning. > The word entrée maintained this meaning of a substantial meat course served after the soup/fish and before the roast in Britain, France, and America until well after the first World War. http://languageoffood.blogspot.ch/2009/08/entree.html http://languageoffood.blogspot.ch/2009/08/entree.html
    • umanwizard 10y ago
      How could that possibly make sense etymologically? (I'm genuinely curious). Given that "entrée" means "entrance"...
  • robotresearcher 10y ago
    > This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Terrorists are criminals whose main motivation is political. The main motivation of other criminals is not. One term is more specific, so they are not interchangeable, and the term terrorist carries useful information when used properly. Of course, diseases are not politically motivated, so that analogy is not great.
• initram 10y ago
  Have you ever lived with someone with a mental illness? I definitely see the relationship with terrorism. Terrorism thrives on fear - "will they attack today?", "Will they use some horrible method of attack?", "Will I be able to handle it?", etc. Living with someone with mental illness can strike fear into a person. "When I get home from work, will I get normal spouse, or lunatic spouse?", "Will I need to take my children away from this situation, or will we have a nice normal meal?", "Will I get fired for constantly having to leave work to deal with this shit, or will it calm down for long enough that I can accomplish some of my life goals?" It can be very terrifying dealing with something like this, and frankly, I find the metaphor extremely apt. I understand your distaste of how the word is used in the media, but please understand that not all of us use these words lightly. These diseases really can be literally terrifying to the people around the disabled. It can literally feel like someone or something is torturing your loved ones when you see what happens to them.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • oska 10y ago
    Something that is terrifying is not the same as a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who deliberately and consciously seeks to create fear and terror, usually for political ends. A disease can not be a terrorist because it is not conscious and has no political agenda (obviously).
    • nameless912 10y ago
      That's mincing words. Being bipolar feels like an assault on my psyche that exists for no reason other than to make me miserable and to meticulously sabotage everything I do. I totally understand feeling like having a terrorist in your head, because it's a great way to describe how I feel sometimes.
    • intopieces 10y ago
• kefka 10y ago
  My Gods, please accept my condolences. When your husband, Robin Williams passed away, I mourned for him. I was only someone who greatly appreciated his humor and drama. As a personal mourning for someone whom affected me as a viewer, I watched "What Dreams May come".... It is one of his saddest and yet most beautiful movies. I live with, and am married to someone with Bipolar disease. I am grateful and happy she accepted me, yet I know she has it. It's OK, as I shall be aside her. But I know she has had similar beliefs and impulses. And please, do not believe I'm comparing us two; I am not. I can guarantee one thing; He won't be forgotten. I know how much he affected my life, in the humor, and the great joy of his films and comedies. His comedy was infections, in the most joyous way possible! I nary could stop laughing on his 2011 comedy he gave that was recorded by HBO! We had to stop the recording for a half-hour for us(not we-us!) to catch our breath! And eventually, we continued the insanely-funny comedy! He was such a wonderful and amazing reporter... And yet when he passed, I mourned. I have only mourned for very few.... and yet when I didn't think I would mourn for someone whom I only knew through their acting, I did. We lost someone very special to all of us. Whether it was through their comedy, their hilarity, through their drama, or through their serious drama; he was special to so many of us. I do hope you not only survive, but greatly thrive! One of the things you can do is be yourself ! Don't forget that! You can also continue his legacy; do what you're doing right now and continue bringing the thought and reminder of this disease. It's not common yet, and still needs further advocacy. You're in a perfect area to bring this area of genetic/prion disease to light. And, please don't forget yourself! Yes, Master Robin Williams (yes, a master, in the arts of Comedy, Drama, and Acting)was a great person who brought his laughter and commedia to all, but don't forget yourself.. You succeed him. Do the best you can do, in his name. It may not be commedia. If may not be acting. But that's OK. Do what you do the best! May the deities he and you believe in bless you.
• ff10 10y ago
  I agree mostly, but I think not the usage of this analogy is the real problem in this specific case. I think the usage here is apt as a figure of speech. However, like you already pointed out, the usage of the word terrorist in general is inflationary and has a strong significance from its literal meaning. The notions compete with each other on this level and for some readers reading those words in this context appear to be like a cheap, sort of unfair stake in the battle(!) for attention.
• oldmanjay 10y ago
  Do you truly feel like Americans moreso than any other nationality choose words poorly, in your estimation? That seems like a fairly unsupportable hypothesis. One might say it's a poorly chosen place to point the finger.