TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful. Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions. Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind o...
Not if they're alternative facts!
ReplyDeleteJesus, I was watching that, too.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to give him some minimal credit (because I heard/saw the delivery and the context) that he wasn't just carrying water. But the best that can possibly be said is that he puts not name-calling and singing kumbaya over anything else.
We're past that, and Sanders should have asked him point blank, "Well what would it take to get you to call him a liar?"
That was a real low point of his otherwise adequate performance.
Or to put it another way, Kasich has not yet stared fully into the abyss.
ReplyDeleteI think that's part of why it stood out.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Kasich, this is emphatically not a "learning curve" issue. Sanders had the guts to call him out on that directly.
ReplyDelete...wat
ReplyDelete