While not the point of this episode, I thought it might interest other listeners to know that many modern English speakers use the verb “reduce” in its original meaning every day: doctors. I reduce displaced fractures, or reduce a dislocated joint (meaning, put the bones back where they were). I actually never knew this was the original meaning of the word, thank you for sharing this.
The last three comments are the disingenuous ones. Of course race and our troubled past is still being taught. What's being resisted is teaching white kids that they are the inheritors of a never-ending racial sin that can never be cleansed.
This is such a disingenuous argument. The evolution of a party's platform has nothing to do with linguistics, and the weaponizing of terms for political purposes has nothing to do with the natural evolution of language. I usually admire John's professionalism and intellectual honesty even when I disagree, but this was pure hackery.
John, you know you're being extremely disingenuous in making this comparison. The type of semantic drift you’re discussing in the intro is slow, gradual change. The new usage of CRT is a conscious new usage by people who would not even have heard the phrase a year or two ago, it’s an active attempt at political branding. In that sense, it’s much more similar to 1984 newspeak (quite literally, “discussing racism is racism”), and you’re well aware of that.
John, many congrats on your new gig at the NYT! (It's about fucking time they brought you on board) I very much look forward to it!
While not the point of this episode, I thought it might interest other listeners to know that many modern English speakers use the verb “reduce” in its original meaning every day: doctors. I reduce displaced fractures, or reduce a dislocated joint (meaning, put the bones back where they were). I actually never knew this was the original meaning of the word, thank you for sharing this.
The last three comments are the disingenuous ones. Of course race and our troubled past is still being taught. What's being resisted is teaching white kids that they are the inheritors of a never-ending racial sin that can never be cleansed.
And you know it.
This is such a disingenuous argument. The evolution of a party's platform has nothing to do with linguistics, and the weaponizing of terms for political purposes has nothing to do with the natural evolution of language. I usually admire John's professionalism and intellectual honesty even when I disagree, but this was pure hackery.
John, you know you're being extremely disingenuous in making this comparison. The type of semantic drift you’re discussing in the intro is slow, gradual change. The new usage of CRT is a conscious new usage by people who would not even have heard the phrase a year or two ago, it’s an active attempt at political branding. In that sense, it’s much more similar to 1984 newspeak (quite literally, “discussing racism is racism”), and you’re well aware of that.