commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:28 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:10 pm
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:29 am
If the term strike weren't used, by the government, and thus by no one, do you think that daylight would react?
What do you mean when you imply that when the government doesn’t use the term “strike”, then no one will use it?
What does daylight have to do with a strike or a government?
What would daylight react to, if it could form a reaction?
Please answer these clarifying questions for me. Thanks.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm
There's the question of ownership, of the term strike - is it the governments or unions term?
No matter who ‘owns’ a word, it is free to be used by anyone. Ownership makes no sense here unless you are trying to make the case that use of a word is taboo to every group save one.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm
I looked at the M-W list, and there's the usage of "engage in a strike against an employer", which I interpret as a misappropriation, since not doing work isn't the same as committing a physical assault, which the word strike implies.
One definition of a word with multiple definitions is completely separate from another of its definitions. One definition does not appropriate another either correctly or not. This is how homonyms work.
trokanmariel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:42 pm
With daylight, the reference involves the imagination, that if capitalism weren't reality, since the industry of people doing manual labour jobs aren't in action, since the term strike isn't being used, eventually daylight could become an obstacle of humanity or life in general.
Daylight, imagination, capitalism, reality, jobs, strikes, humanity—try again (to put these words in a cogent sentence).
The word 'strike' can be, and is, subconsciously or unconsciously, used to influence a hatred of, or for, those who have just taken unpaid time off from work, in order to obtain better pay and/or conditions, for "themselves or others".
If this never occurred, then the difference between the, so called, "wealthy" and "the poor" would be so much wider than it is, in the days when this is being written.
The very reason WHY particular words are used in some circumstances is to influence a reaction, or evoke a behavior. But the subtleties and nuances of these words and the way they are used, and/or when they are used are not always consciously picked up on nor noticed.
Particular words are chosen VERY CAREFULLY, even though just how much may not yet be recognized, in order to control a state or society in a way that is wanted.
WHY do you think so many adult human beings actually BELIEVE: "Life is hard (and/or complex)", "We need money to live", "We need to go to work to make a living", and/or "We have to pay taxes"?
These things are OBVIOUSLY NOT true AT ALL. But because 'you', human beings, have been continually 'fed' such controlling and influencing words, with such an influential, but unconscious, BELIEF behind them, that is WHY 'you', adult human beings, grow up BELIEVING things that are OBVIOUSLY NOT true AT ALL.
The "controllers" (the kings and queens) and 'leaders", (the presidents, prime ministers, and preachers), influence 'you' ALL to BELIEVE that you ALL HAVE TO "go out and make as much money", and that you HAVE TO "pay taxes", so that you can give them your money so that they get as much of it as they can for doing as least as possible.
WHY else would you, and do you, hand over YOUR hard earned money to "them"?
Name ONE THING that a, so called, "king", "queen", "preacher", or "leader" has actually 'done for you' that 'you', "yourself", or a group of people', could not have done by "yourself/selves", for FAR LESS money.
Does going on 'strike', against those who HAVE and HOLD completely unnecessary and absolutely exorbitant amounts of money, and who ACTUALLY do absolutely NOTHING 'for you', really seem like a bad or wrong thing?
MAYBE if the ones with the absolutely excessive amounts of money, which the ones who spread the media, news, and 'information', to the masses, usually are, did NOT 'try to' portray those people who go on 'strike', just for better, or more equal, pay and working conditions, as being bad or wrong people, then the word 'strike' might get changed to, something like just; 'stopped working'.
OBVIOUSLY, only the ones with the unnecessary amounts of money WANT "others" to keep working 'for them', so that that they can just keep getting more and more of that unnecessary amounts of money. Those ones obviously do NOT work 'hard' for their money, and if they do, then they are the MOST STUPIDEST people of ALL, because they do NOT 'have to' work, at all, let alone 'work hard'.
The media uses the word 'strike' because they feel that "others" are 'striking' against them and their wants, that is; striking against them obtaining more money.
Sometimes, gaining a perspective from a 'non native speaker', or in other words, from 'an outside perspective', shines a far GREATER and BRIGHTER light on what is ACTUALLY really happening, and occurring.