reactionary

[DirtyEddie]

was wading through the shit storm upstairs and got to page 6 when i decided i just had to make this topic.

the word 'reactionary' doesnt mean someone who reacts out of proportion to something. it isnt synonymous with the term 'knee jerk'

a reactionary is a conservative, opposed to social and political change who yearns for things to return to how they were in the past.

so someone says 'omg garry said man utd' and someone else says 'omg garry out' and someone else says 'omg stop being so reactionary'. thats wrong. that isnt what reactionary is.

anyone else like to clear up some common misconceptions while we are at it?

 

[bizzbo]

Sir, whilst your attempts to inform the masses are, I'm sure, gratefully and humbly received, I believe that, whilst it is true that the classic and more significant usage of 'reactionary' is to describe persons who seek a return to an earlier state of affairs, (and indeed the earliest recorded use of said term, John Stewart Mill describing Coleridge, 1840 is an exact archetypal example of that usage), this adjective has been, as is the way with all language, repeatedly and inevitably (doubly so with a word so richly suggestive of associations so frequently apposite to the experience of the communication and analysis of the ideas of others) appropriated to other ends, which may be characterised as being attempts to signify and describe anything pertaining to, or marked by a strong reaction.

This, I propose, is evinced by the inclusively broad sense of the word being detailed (and, as such, normalised) in authoritative modern lexicographical publications, one of which, The Oxford English Dictionary, indeed, declines to demarcate, or differentiate, between these usages and meanings when the word is employed as an adjective, preferring to proffer a broad, single definition of the adjective 'reactionary' that includes both senses suggested hitherto, albeit with emphasis placed upon it's (preferred, one may imply) usage as philosophical descriptor. The definition of the adjective is accompanied by another (naturally) narrower definition of the noun that exactly and concisely summarises the usage which you have outlined, this more peripatetic (and elegant?) usage, a more historically, philosophically and literately significant meaning that you have informatively outlined. I shall not bore you pedantically with the exact wordings of these definitions, as they are freely and widely available to those inclined to research them, and our time is perhaps spent better elsewhere.

I wonder, then, finally, if this leaves you, I, and the posters to whom you have referred, in the agreeable situation where we all are correct, but (as the natural result of inequalities in education, aptitude and outlook), some more so than others.

Your humble admirer,

Biz

 

[burning blue soul]

Bit over-reactionary there bizzbo, maybe you could clear up one for me.

Missionary, is a word that crops up from time to time between me and the mrs, but we have no strong religious beliefs, maybe you could explain?

 

[bizzbo]

Bit over-reactionary there bizzbo, maybe you could clear up one for me.

Missionary, is a word that crops up from time to time between me and the mrs, but we have no strong religious beliefs, maybe you could explain?

Perhaps it's a subject better explored face to face?

 

[burning blue soul]

Yes, good advice, I'll get right on it!!

 

[BingoBango]

Bizzbo, I for one salute your wordsmithery.

 

[Cheltblue]

Sir, whilst your attempts to inform the masses are, I'm sure, gratefully and humbly received, I believe that, whilst it is true that the classic and more significant usage of 'reactionary' is to describe persons who seek a return to an earlier state of affairs, (and indeed the earliest recorded use of said term, John Stewart Mill describing Coleridge, 1840 is an exact archetypal example of that usage), this adjective has been, as is the way with all language, repeatedly and inevitably (doubly so with a word so richly suggestive of associations so frequently apposite to the experience of the communication and analysis of the ideas of others) appropriated to other ends, which may be characterised as being attempts to signify and describe anything pertaining to, or marked by a strong reaction.

This, I propose, is evinced by the inclusively broad sense of the word being detailed (and, as such, normalised) in authoritative modern lexicographical publications, one of which, The Oxford English Dictionary, indeed, declines to demarcate, or differentiate, between these usages and meanings when the word is employed as an adjective, preferring to proffer a broad, single definition of the adjective 'reactionary' that includes both senses suggested hitherto, albeit with emphasis placed upon it's (preferred, one may imply) usage as philosophical descriptor. The definition of the adjective is accompanied by another (naturally) narrower definition of the noun that exactly and concisely summarises the usage which you have outlined, this more peripatetic (and elegant?) usage, a more historically, philosophically and literately significant meaning that you have informatively outlined. I shall not bore you pedantically with the exact wordings of these definitions, as they are freely and widely available to those inclined to research them, and our time is perhaps spent better elsewhere.

I wonder, then, finally, if this leaves you, I, and the posters to whom you have referred, in the agreeable situation where we all are correct, but (as the natural result of inequalities in education, aptitude and outlook), some more so than others.

Your humble admirer,

Biz

You need to brush up on your writing skills Bizzbo, there is no need for a coma after 'wonder'........;)