Re: OfB.biz: It's Official: SCO Declares IP Jihad on Linux

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> > Hmm... I haven't heard that before. Where are they known as "just" wars?
> > Even in my church, when they did a Church history course, they were
> > presented uncomplimentary light.
>
> Well, in this country crusaders are generally considered 'noble', and in
> history lessons they are presented neutrally. So this has and does happen,
> if not in the US, and I think there's a parallel.

  They aren't noble at least here in the midwest.


> >    Is this a loaded question or what? :-) First, before discussing my
> > overall rationale, I would argue that it is quite hard to infer
> > "religious intolerance" by the usage of one word in a subject of a title
> > not discussing anything religious.
>
> Well, if you were (purely for example, and I'm aware this isn't a very good
> one, but it's the best I can think of at the moment) to to say that SCO is
> acting 'with the stupidity of a negro', then that would infer racial
> hatred, even though the actual article has nothing to do with Africans. I
> think it's the same kind of thing. The difference is that 'stupidity of a
> negro' hasn't been used as a buzzword (or buzzphrase) by the mainstream
> media and therefore isn't acceptable.

  Well, the thing is, is that the example you give presents a set race that 
you would be attacking. From a purely literal standpoint, a Christian *could* 
fight a Jihad either as a holy war or as an attempt at self-improvement. 
While Jihad is definately Muslim, it isn't specifically making the connection 
that you do in your "buzzphrase."

> >   Now, at least in the current understanding however, much as you note,
> > Jihad does have more of a negative connotation, and is thus more
> > appropriate for a negative headline than crusade. It is also a term close
> > to memory for most people atm, which makes it fit better as well.
>
> You hit the nail on the head here. Why does it have a negative connotation?
> The answer is that it is continually used in this fashion, in much the same
> way as the word 'awful' has completely reversed it's meaning. Words are
> often given a negative connotation by the media as a form of propaganda,
> making people more likely to reject a concept by making the word itself
> objectionable. Personally, I think you're contributing to this effect,
> whether you intend to or not.

  I think it has a negative connotation, at least in the western world, 
because its only usage here is when someone, say UBL, declared that he was 
starting a Jihad against the U.S. or when Iraq asked all Muslims to fight in 
a Jihad against the U.S. While there are lots of Muslims in the United 
States, most of them don't talk about how their "Jihad" for self improvment 
is going.

  I think what you are seeing is the formation of an English world "Jihad" 
that means a war that the starter thinks is righteous but that is wrong or at 
least using the wrong means.  


> >   Consider this: "SCO Declares Crusade against Linux" and "SCO Declares
> > Jihad against Linux"... which gets the point across better?
>
> Both about the same, from where I'm sitting. If you find the latter more
> effective then clearly you've succumbed to the kind of propaganda I was
> just talking about.

  I think, based on the dictionary definition, it is closer. I would also 
assert that it really doesn't matter what is most effective to *me* but to my 
reader.

> >   Coming through again "SCO Declares a Remedial Enterprise Undertaken
> > with Zeal Against Linux" or "SCO Declares a Crusade of Belief Against
> > Linux"?
>
> How about 'War'? I think you're deliberately giving silly examples in an
> effort to make my position look ridiculous.

  No, those are the dictionary definitions placed into the context of the 
title.


> >   While most Christians aren't happy about this, certainly no one is
> > going to say that someone "incorrectly" using that term is hateful of the
> > Christian Church.
>
> Maybe so, but I don't think that happened through a desire to demonise
> Christians. It's a similar example, but not the same, IMO.

  Well, I have no desire to demonize Muslims either.

  One thing I would emphasize is that no one, save you and Andreas, complained 
about the issue. And, of course, that means no Muslims complained at all.

  -Tim

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler       Universal Networks      www.uninet.info
==================== <[email protected]> ====================
| Christian Portal:      | Have you not learned great lessons |
|      www.faithtree.com | from those  who  braced themselves |
| GNU/Linux News:        | against  you   and   disputed  the |
|            www.ofb.biz | passage with you?   --Walt Whitman |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+uWQnK37Cns9gJ0gRAmvcAJ4+jVBVjcHIydg1Qm+G1SPRxGDr4QCeIuqY
O17yWuNBsBncqMvrqRGX5Bc=
=d+su
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.