And a nuclear holocaust is an appropriate terminology. There is no way one could say:
Because that is not how the word has been used in World War II.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Australian PM calls the loss of jobs a holocaust to score political points
- Thread starter AxeMan
- Start date
- Status
And a nuclear holocaust is an appropriate terminology. There is no way one could say:
Because that is not how the word has been used in World War II.
Yes, for example in movies: Cannibal Holocaust, Zombie Holocaust, etc.
Did he say that was his intention?
The primary meaning of the word has nothing to do with World War 2.
FreezerGeezer
Member
The primary meaning of the word has meant the systematic deaths of millions since World War II.
for fuck's sake.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holocaust
noun
1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire.
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually preceded by the).
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.
noun
1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire.
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually preceded by the).
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.
Great. Thanks. Gay can also mean happy, except it hasn't since the 1960s.
No, it's not. That is 'the Holocaust'.
Those are the movies I go to for guidance on complex social issues.
Again, the primary meaning of the word has meant the systematic deaths of millions since World War II. If you wish to ignore the actual reality of what 99% of the english speaking world will understand when you say the word "holocaust", have fun with that.
Also, Tony Abbott seems to agree, since he also says it was a poor word choice.
An holocaust is a massive loss, disaster scenario, it has always meant that and that's the way it's used, and the way this australian politician used it.
Then there's the Holocaust, referencing to the WWII massacres.
I already put the meaning of holocaust noun above according to the dictionary, no need to ask. If I ask anybody about 'the Holocaust' they'll obviously answer about the WWII massacres. It's always been like that.
Again, go outside and ask people what the definition of "holocaust" is and see if anyone -- literally, anyone -- replies by saying, "oh, it's a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire."
And… again:
In usage, the world no longer means what you purport it to mean.
Generally it's used to refer to two things outside the Nazi Holocaust: Mass murder and burning a ton of stuff.
Neither of which work very well here.
They already had 40 people vote against him with no one actually to vote for. That's right, 40 people in his party think no one is better than Abbott.
We are not going to agree so I'll end this here, but if I ask anybody about the meaning of the word 'holocaust' per se most will agree it's a devastation, massive loss, disaster. If I ask them what is 'the Holocaust' they will answer the WWII massacres.
I'll put another source. Please check the bolded examples of use below. Very clear and exactly what I'm saying. The expression 'nuclear holocaust' is also quite common.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust
Full Definition of HOLOCAUST
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the
b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide
Examples of HOLOCAUST
The museum is devoted to the Holocaust.
There were fears of a nuclear holocaust.
eh. i feel like the word was being used within some rather reasonable terms. i dont think anyone with half a mind for reason would confuse the historical connotations of the word with its usage here. or at least they wouldnt except to cause a controversy. i dont see much of a basis for anger, really.
If you ask a random person on the street what the word holocaust means, they will say the mass genocide of Jews in World War II. End of list. That is what Tony Abbott said that is so unbelievably dumb. The word holocaust -- in contemporary usage -- almost exclusively refers to the mass genocide in World War II. It can also refer to a few more genocides throughout history as well.
And it's not about agreeing. When you say "holocaust", you refer to, as I stated before, something similar to the mass murder of 11 million people. Both of your bolded statements make sense. The reason why nuclear holocaust, again, as I stated before, makes sense is because it's comparable to a mass murder of 11 million people.
I don't even know what you're trying to argue? That there are other dictionary definitions of holocaust? Sure. They're archaic. Rational people can agree on that. What Tony Abbott said, given the modern context since the 40s about what that word means, was very, very dumb.
Jodast
Member
We're just giving America a demo of what it'll be like with the Tea Party republicans in charge.
Mr_Appleby
Member
Your examples refute your argument.
TatteredHat
Member
Nuclear Holocaust?
Sure it is. There is the Holocaust - the organised slaughter of Jews during WWII - and a holocaust, which means a massive amount of destruction and loss of life.
Context is the the thing.
Now maybe he was pandering to some sort of right wing nutjobs by using the word, but it certainly is a word used outside of the WWII context.
The word has been used for centuries before the Holocaust to mean destruction and slaughter.
To yourself and others it may be exclusively used in and around the context of WWII, but when I learned the word it wasn't. Probable differences in schooling and literature exposure would explain the difference.
Excuse me, but what is your reference ("Ask a random person on the street" doesn't really cut it) for your claim that 'holocaust' has lost it's supposedly 'archaic' meaning, and now exclusively refers to the Holocaust?
I think this a load of crap, and I certainly understand how to differentiate between the accepted dictionary definition of the word and the historical event. So, speak for yourself.
Either way, Abbott's a cretin.
My reference is the common sense on what the generally accepted term and usage of the world holocaust is after living a life in which I've viewed its usage.
The problem with the "accepted dictionary definition" is that it isn't used in any modern context, except for the term nuclear holocaust.
speculawyer
Member
Is there any article that you can find that refers to "holocaust" in the context that Tony Abbott would've used it that wouldn't refer to a mass genocide, or, like, a complete evisceration of all life on earth from a nuclear winter?
Context may be key, but this word has a very narrow modern usage, and Tony Abbott's usage of the term was remarkably stupid.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Even considering the correct technical use of "holocaust" and its accuracy here, I'm sure we can agree the it's a loaded word with entrenched cultural/historic significance that largely redefined its suitable context, and thus agree upon its the tackiness of its use in this context; from the Prime Minister in parliament in reference to the opposition's leadership and job loss.
It's an vague (and arguably incorrect) definition for a complex issue the current government has been a negative contributor to expressed as a hit bait drive by slur no different to Andrew Bolt-esque tabloid garbage. You expect more from reputable, professional leadership. And you're not surprised when it comes from Abbott.
It's an vague (and arguably incorrect) definition for a complex issue the current government has been a negative contributor to expressed as a hit bait drive by slur no different to Andrew Bolt-esque tabloid garbage. You expect more from reputable, professional leadership. And you're not surprised when it comes from Abbott.
Banderdash
Member
It also probably depends on your location... I live in Adelaide, if I asked people what holocaust meant, they'd probably say a massive loss of life. If I asked the same question in Tel Aviv, they'd tell me it refers to the loss of Jewish lives in the 1940s.
I heard the slaughter of 2000 people recently by Boko Harum referred to as a holocaust.
Are you seriously asking me if there are comments or articles on the internet that use hyperbolic language? Really? And remember we are talking about a politician, hyperbolic language is their bread and butter.
The usage of the term is politically stupid, I'll agree with you there.
I'm tired, so excuse me -- I don't believe that there is any context in which you can use the term "holocaust" in 2015 without referring to:
-- A massive genocide
-- A nuclear winter
There is no world in which Tony Abbott calling purported job loss in one sector a "holocaust" makes sense from any of its modern usage. I misread your post.
He was more accurate when he backpedaled. Decimation is a better word to use for having jobs in the defense construction industry reduced by 10%, as it literally means to reduce by 10%.
i dont know, man. i could call the mycenaean collapse a cultural holocaust. similarly, i could talk about the sea people's rape of the ancient near east as one of the causes for the larger bronze age collapse. lets not act like academics or halfway intelligent people wouldnt know what im talking about.
i dont think youre arguing anything of note here with much efficacy
I also disagree that you could/should refer to those things as a holocaust, given the loaded terminology of the phrase, and I don't think it'd be generally well received, but go ahead, I suppose.
The lesson that Abbott should understand: Without understanding loaded terminology, you're opening yourself up to connotations and connections that you did not intend. Did Tony Abbott mean to compare a 10% decrease in one particular private sector as something similar to a genocide. No. But he used a loaded term that is rife with genocidal connotations. His funeral.
Dude, we already know. They have both houses of our Congress. And we went through 8 years of George Bush before all this.
The semantics of the word is irrelevant and everybody needs to shutup. He clearly didn't mean it in a deragarory way toward Holocaust victims and there was no malice in it.
The real crime is this man's horrific self-immolation in the public eye and the embarrassment his limp performance is reflecting on Australian. The man is a well-intentioned goose, sickeningly old-fashioned and a gaffe-prone dinosaur who is entirely unsuitable as the leader of a country. He should never have been elected and will likely go down in history as our worst ever PM.
That he could make such a stupid mistake after such a torrid few months is evidence he is not up to it and needs to go.
The real crime is this man's horrific self-immolation in the public eye and the embarrassment his limp performance is reflecting on Australian. The man is a well-intentioned goose, sickeningly old-fashioned and a gaffe-prone dinosaur who is entirely unsuitable as the leader of a country. He should never have been elected and will likely go down in history as our worst ever PM.
That he could make such a stupid mistake after such a torrid few months is evidence he is not up to it and needs to go.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Well seeing as he was referring to a loss of jobs in one (small) sector of the economy and that unemployment has increased under his government and will continue to do so... yes. He was exaggerating.
This lol.
I don't think anyone in this threas has said such a thing. This is why it was such a monumentally boneheaded thing to say:
You're a head of state. You have to be very careful with loaded terminology, even if you don't mean it with malice, because it could look monumentally idiotic.
Decimation would mean a reduction to 10%, not by 10%, would it not?
reptilescorpio
Member
Yeah we just hit unheard of levels of unemployment. Well, unheard of since Tony Abbott was employment minister :/
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Until now I had a disassociation with using the word holocaust as an actual term used outside of historical reference -- such as in "nuclear holocaust"
I never thought about it I guess. So I suppose the quote isn't as bad as I initially thought
I never thought about it I guess. So I suppose the quote isn't as bad as I initially thought
As I recall, the term was used to describe what happened to a Roman legion when they ran from battle. The rest of the legion was forced to beat every tenth man to death as punishment.
- Status