No. You're missing the point.Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's not about whether the term could technically be argued as being accurate or not. It's about its context and connotations.
Leaders must choose their language carefully and considerately.
The term "surrender" for, I would wager the vast majority of people all over the world, implies images of war, and submitting to an enemy.
Surely you can recognise this? Surely you can understand why language like that would invoke a negative response? We have a rich and vibrant language, and any decent statesman not peddling the "enemy" strategy would use language that unites, not divides us.
But this doesn't seem to matter to you. You don't seem to care if people get upset, anxious or offended by the manner in which our leaders behave.
Reply With Quote