• ???@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Hmmm. Do you always disambiguate word meanings by first taking them out of context and then applying some textbook definition you like?

    I clearly meant this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43783789

    Even people writing papers on this use this word to mean that in this context.

    I’m not denying other meanings exist. I’m just saying that you’re kinda being a jerk to get UMMM-ACTUALLYYY smart-points. In your head. They are only in your head my dude.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Even people writing papers

      And? There are people “writing papers” that still think the USSR was “socialist” or that the US is “democratic.”

      Political concepts have meaning, genius - that meaning doesn’t change just because said meaning upsets the feels of liberals such as yourself, okay?

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        And what? Radicalization can mean different things in context. What do you think was the context when talking about this violence cycle? Could it have been like that example from that paper, a widely used definition by both academics and non academics?

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Radicalization can mean different things in context.

          Oh really? So why do liberals peddling their bootlicker ideology in mainstream media choose to only use the term in that specific context, hmm?

          You never find fascists self-applying the terms “radical” or “radicalized”… that’s something only leftists do. Yet you liberals constantly ignore that context, don’t you?

          Why is that, liberal?