The point of Greenwald's screed, Hunt, was that neocons, both Jewish and non-Jewish, don't like to acknowledge the fact that large numbers of Jews disagree with them. Because if they acknowledge that, then it becomes awkward to accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being anti-semitic.

It is unfortunate that the word "anti-semitism" has been distorted and used so dishonestly in service of a political agenda, to the point that many on the left will not even use the word anymore. But the word does have an actual, commonly understood meaning, and the phenomenon it describes does still exist. Often it is subtle or ambiguous or subject to interpretation, and I much prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. But if someone is going to be shamelessly blatant about it, I see no reason to make nice. (I also see no reason to look for even worse examples on the internet. Life's too short.) So, again, Bethincary, if you read this, fuck off.

sign me the heil up.

the term "pro-life" without quotation marks, you lose all credibility in discussing abortion. To use the term uncritically is to incorporate and legitimize decades of dishonest branding and propaganda. It is akin to blithely referring to people who oppose U.S. militarism as anti-American. Given that laws against abortion invariably kill hundreds or thousands of women wherever such laws are enacted, the term "pro-life" borders on obscenity.

And, odd though it feels to agree with Bethincary, to the extent that people equipped with penises have a problem with abortion, they really should just STFU.

If a newspaper columnist referred to supporters of the Iraq war as "pro-troop" (but without the quote marks), and to opponents of the war as "anti-troop" (again without quote marks), would that columnist lose any credibility in your eyes, or not?

Me: If a newspaper columnist referred to supporters of the Iraq war as "pro-troop" (but without the quote marks), and to opponents of the war as "anti-troop" (again without quote marks), would that columnist lose any credibility in your eyes, or not?

GG: Yes. Those are loaded terms of one side, not -- as I've used -- the term selected for each side to describe themselves.

Me now: Selected "for" each side? Selected by whom? Do you really imagine that the term "pro-life" was not coined and propagated by that side? If so, you're quite mistaken. If you think "pro-life" is not a loaded term, but rather a neutral one selected by objective and disinterested observers, that would certainly explain your puzzlement at my objection. It also demonstrates that several decades of propaganda have worked wonderfully on you, to the point that you have internalized a phrase that is, objectively, loaded as hell.

and now realize you meant to say "selected BY each side" rather than "selected FOR each side."

OK, so if a group advocating the incarceration of homosexuals calls itself "pro-morality," you'll respect that, too, right?

You know full well that language matters, a lot. You just happen not to care about this particular issue, which is why you can be blase about the terms used to define the debate. And that's fine, you don't have to care; just be honest about it.

To answer your question about "pro-choice," I tend to avoid it as well, for similar reasons, although is more accurately descriptive and less rankly dishonest than "pro-life." The most accurate way to describe the two sides, in my view, are those who favor criminalization of abortion, and those who oppose criminalization of abortion. The actual policy advocated by "pro-lifers" generally boils down to imposing some sort of criminal penalties for abortion, which is what those of us on the other side are trying to prevent.

Glenn, I said you don't care about abortion, and you said I made an "unfair and unwarranted" assumption. But you didn't say "inaccurate." So I will ask directly: do you, in fact, care very much about abortion as an issue? (If you answer affirmatively, I will gladly retract my statement.) And if you do, what's your position on it?

Try as you might, there is no principled distinction that can be made between people who want to incarcerate abortion providers and/or their patients calling themselves "pro-life," and people who want to incarcerate homosexuals calling themselves "pro-morality." In either case you have a group of people pursuing a consciously punitive agenda and using an Orwellian platitude to make it sound warm & fuzzy.

Yeah, nuance is for wimps. Why say something clunky but accurate, like "coordinated effort to use intelligence, law enforcement, diplomacy and military force to prevent terrorist attacks by certain specific groups of non-state actors" when you can just say "War on Terra!!" instead. It's so convenient! Rolls right off the tongue! What could be the harm?

Your analogy between "pro-life" and "Republican Party" fails, because "Republican Party" is the actual name of an actual organization. A better analogy would be if Republicans began unofficially referring to their party as, say, the "patriotic party," and the media uncritically adopted the term as a purportedly neutral and generic label.