User talk:Hillgentleman/20070707174928
人好少叫自己做「乜乜份子」; terrorist = terrorism-->ist = 恐怖主義者。
編輯- 有嘢講：/Comment： 人好少叫自己做「中堅份子」、「活躍份子」、「恐暴份子」、「搗亂份子」。其實terrorist = terrorism-->ist = 恐怖主義者。你舉呢啲都係其他人叫嘅，有好多時有「佢係 我唔係、劃清楚河漢界」嘅涵義。 Thus, alienation.
--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月7號 (六) 15:09 (UTC)
『恐怖主義者』又唔係人哋加畀佢嘅
編輯- 有嘢講：/Comment：
都唔係呀。『我係「中堅份子」』、『我呢個會係「活躍份子」』... 不時有人會咁講喎，唔算 alienation 呀。邊會 terrorist 邊會叫自己做『恐怖主義者』㗎，佢哋認為自己係 liberalizer, freedom frighters, god's army...，『恐怖主義者』又唔係人哋加畀佢嘅。I told you before terms are carrying point of view. Neutral terms are hard to come by.『乜乜份子』唔係問題，點寫句嘢先重要。
--WikiCantona 2007年7月7號 (六) 16:22 (UTC)
I say what I mean. Terrorist= 恐怖主義者.
編輯- 有嘢講：/Comment： I do not use the term "terrorist". And when other people use it, I never translate the term into "terror faction member".
--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月7號 (六) 16:28 (UTC)
分子、份子
編輯- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Yesterday I went to the library to check 分子，and found out that the term appears in the ancient time. Exact quoting I don't have, but if you it, I will find it. Two ancient meanings: "descendent of a clan", "spliting money." 分子 is wrongly translated into fraction (派系), it should be "element" or "particle", or just people belonging to a group. It appears to be a very neutral terms - with good or bad.
I understand why you think 分子 have something to do with class struggle. The term 知識分子 is a group being 抖 in the "Cultural Revolution".
--WikiCantona 2007年7月8號 (日) 23:28 (UTC)
"People belonging to a group" is a phrase which sometimes leads to bias; use it carefully
編輯- 有嘢講：/Comment： Thanks. However: A man can belong to a group but a man is more than a member of a group. A man can carry out "an act of terror" without belonging to any group. A man can do something without joining (either explicitely or implicitly) a group which does it. In anycase, terrorist =/= terror group member.
--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月8號 (日) 23:42 (UTC)
Agreement
編輯- 有嘢講：/Comment：
I agree with you very much. I will take your advice in heart. I have been so worry about the neutrality of the words. I guess this is interesting example to illustrate my point. Words do carry point of views. Thank you for your advice.