FYI the reason most podcasts are discovered via YouTube has less to do with people wanting to watch you sit there and more to do with the fact it has a good discovery algorithm that recommends you things you might like. If I discover a podcast on YouTube I often switch to listening in my podcast app.
More important than what one decides to call it is the question of critisizing those who use a different term. It's much less important to get the right term than to avoid forcing people to choose a side of the debate to discuss the topic.
I think the critics of the interim/shadow/emergency docket have some very compelling points but that makes it that much worse when they critisize attempts to describe it in nuetral terms -- a move which polarizes the terminology in a way that keeps your criticism from being heard. The stronger your criticism is the more you should want it to reach people who aren't convinced yet and if you insist those descriptions use terms that will be parsed as prejudging the issue you get tuned out (same way you can't persuade anyone new that some Israeli action is unacceptable if you start by describing them as ''the genocidal Zionist colonizer's')
As long as we weren't critisizing other people for using the wrong terms there was enough diversity in who called it what that it wasn't triggering to people. Once we start policing the terminology it will quickly come to be seen as loaded and make it that much harder to have a shared sense of reality or to reach people with critical arguments.
The Voldemort Docket.
FYI the reason most podcasts are discovered via YouTube has less to do with people wanting to watch you sit there and more to do with the fact it has a good discovery algorithm that recommends you things you might like. If I discover a podcast on YouTube I often switch to listening in my podcast app.
More important than what one decides to call it is the question of critisizing those who use a different term. It's much less important to get the right term than to avoid forcing people to choose a side of the debate to discuss the topic.
I think the critics of the interim/shadow/emergency docket have some very compelling points but that makes it that much worse when they critisize attempts to describe it in nuetral terms -- a move which polarizes the terminology in a way that keeps your criticism from being heard. The stronger your criticism is the more you should want it to reach people who aren't convinced yet and if you insist those descriptions use terms that will be parsed as prejudging the issue you get tuned out (same way you can't persuade anyone new that some Israeli action is unacceptable if you start by describing them as ''the genocidal Zionist colonizer's')
As long as we weren't critisizing other people for using the wrong terms there was enough diversity in who called it what that it wasn't triggering to people. Once we start policing the terminology it will quickly come to be seen as loaded and make it that much harder to have a shared sense of reality or to reach people with critical arguments.
Denials of stays of execution hardly seem “interim.”
Part IV gets at something remarkable: no matter what terms someone uses, we all know to what they are referring to