infactuation
Monday, 30 January, 2006 at 6:23 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a CommentTags: definitions
This gem, my new favorite word, was inspired by one of ms. newwords’ students.
infactuation. (n) [in-fackt-you-A-shun] The act of attaching seemingly irrelevant facts to an otherwise unsupportable conclusion. Often used to defend the knowledge described as “truthy”.
For example, this fundraising letter by Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA):
“Make no mistake about it,” Doolittle wrote. “The liberal media wants the Democrats back in control of Congress. They don’t like conservatives. They don’t like President Bush, and they don’t like what we stand for. They will stop at nothing to accomplish their goal.”
Doolittle is employing two layers of infactuation here. First is the idea of the liberal media. Putting aside the fact that this “fact” has been, to my mind, demolished beyond repair, it isn’t relevant to the fact that he’s being investigated by the Bush Justice Department for his documented connections to Jack Abramoff. Second, he commingles his own standing with that of the President. Even if the liberal media hates the President, it isn’t relevant to their inquiries into the Congressman’s dealings. Doolittle’s objective is to portray himself as a victim of a wide-ranging liberal conspiracy, but he can’t muster any evidence to show this.
The forecast for the 2006 election cycle: constant infactuation, with a chance of lies.
No Comments Yet »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.