<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UNSPEAK, by Steven Poole (Grove, $23; release date April 28, 2006)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dibsblog.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dibsblog.com/?p=10</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 01:48:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: aperson</title>
		<link>http://www.dibsblog.com/?p=10#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>aperson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 00:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dibsblog.com/?p=10#comment-2</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What really bothered me about this book was the way he completely ignored some of the most egregious euphemisms -- such as &quot;affirmative action&quot; as a code phrase for &quot;racial discrimination,&quot; and &quot;critical theory&quot; which really means &quot;Marxism.&quot; Perhaps this is because the author is British and those terms are not common there, but I think the real reason is that he was just trying to push one political viewpoint by analyzing some deceptive phrases, yet not mentioning others. So, in the end, &lt;i&gt;Unspeak&lt;/i&gt; is itself a form of unspeak, since he hides his true intentions with deceptive use of language.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What really bothered me about this book was the way he completely ignored some of the most egregious euphemisms &#8212; such as &#8220;affirmative action&#8221; as a code phrase for &#8220;racial discrimination,&#8221; and &#8220;critical theory&#8221; which really means &#8220;Marxism.&#8221; Perhaps this is because the author is British and those terms are not common there, but I think the real reason is that he was just trying to push one political viewpoint by analyzing some deceptive phrases, yet not mentioning others. So, in the end, <i>Unspeak</i> is itself a form of unspeak, since he hides his true intentions with deceptive use of language.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
