The condemnatory power of words

[Zan de Man]

In my discussion with Larkin in the Madrid bombings thread, we have differed on whether the use of the terms "War Criminal", "Criminal War" and "Genocide" to condemn the actions of a state are as powerful as the use of "Terrorist" to condemn those of a non-governmental group.

In such issues, perception is reality, so I've decide to ask posters for their views. You may wish to read pages 6 & 7 of the thread before voting, but it's not compulsory.

[Christian Bale]

I would have thought genocide is the more powerful term, because it automaticly suggests a more comprehensive act of evil, wiping out generations of people.

[Zan de Man]

That's certainly arguable. I voted for the last option because of the heat surrounding some of the other terms at the moment. I think these things change with time.

[Larkin]

I would say that genocide is the more powerful term..but I don't see genocide as being directly related to state killings...after all anyone can commit genocide.

What if it were just between war criminal/state-sponsored killings/terrorism ?

[Zan de Man]

I've listed the words I used in the thread Larkin. You were clear in your view that the others didn't have the same power as Terrorism.

[Larkin]

I've never stated that terrorism has more negative connotations than genocide. But if you want to read that into what I was saying, go for it.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Words don't in themselves have power.
People either create power through words, or assign power to words.
Words themselves are innocent.

[ninjalooter1701]

Words don't in themselves have power.
People either create power through words, or assign power to words.
Words themselves are innocent.
People, collectively assign power to words. Thus, meaning is exchanged, and a common language is created. Thus, they assign power to words, and as such, the word has power. Ok, so the word "doesn't have power in and of itself."

If you want to argue a fine distinction, then argue the connotations behind each of the words. You're making a distinction that is a fine distinction, but irrelevant to the argument at hand.

[marlowe]

Just thought I'd clear that up.

[ninjalooter1701]

Perception is perception, reality is reality.

Language and transmission of information to another implies and generally tries to assure the truth value of the speech content.

"The earth is the center of the universe."

Perception is perception, reality is reality. Yes. and also, "those in power make the rules."

[cwinton]

Each word envisions high-levels of emotional trauma and absolute HORROR.

[adaminthemiddle]

Words don't in themselves have power.
People either create power through words, or assign power to words.
Words themselves are innocent.

You're right. And nothing can undo Hitler's creation of genocide's connotation.

"Criminal War" is a large-scale conflict.

"Terrorist" refers to someone who makes a small-scale attack.

"War Criminal" simply refers to, well, a criminal during war.

However, "genocide" refers to a mass killing of possibly millions of people.

It's like saying which was worst, Hitler's genocide, Saddam, Bin Laden, or the War in Iraq. I don't know about you, but I'd definitely have to go with the first one.