Hi. It's worth pointing out that we're not talking about something subjective, like a film (like this one which neither of us has seen). We're discussing actual historical facts from a real life situation, and the blurring of these facts are precisely what is at issue.
I get a greeting, how sweet. Hello to you too, stranger. I have, incidentally, seen it by now, but yes, we are not quite talking about the film itself.
Now, I don’t think we are discussing historical facts either, per se. I would hope you won’t argue with my ability to have my own take on what we were discussing, at least originally.
I feel the discussion is about the
reading of Knox’s situation by Knox herself, the tabloids, McCarthy and others involved in the production, as well as you and I. I, at least, am discussing such possible readings, not “facts”. People can agree on facts but disagree on what they signify.
It isn't an opinion to believe that "fame" and "infamy" are synonymous in the context of this case. It's an objective error. "Infamy", by definition, refers to reknown caused by disreputable acts. Murderers, rapists, theives, liars...these people are infamous for their behavior.
Okay. Cambridge Dictionary here.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/infamous
Nothing about the word “infamy” suggests that you need to have been responsible for the bad or “evil” deed to be considered “infamous”. You merely need to be
associated with one, as Knox is with murder. Nothing about describing Knox as “infamous” in relation to the Kercher murder in and of itself suggests she committed it. Hence we have Cambridge examples such as:
“Numerous solutions to this now infamous problem have been proposed.”
Now, the problem is famous, i.e. known for being difficult to solve. Hence it is described as “infamous”, yes, because being difficult to solve is perceived by people as “bad”, but this in no way implies agency or “responsibility” on the part of the problem for being a tough nut to crack.
Cambridge also notes “infamous” is synonymous with “notorious”, which doesn’t presuppose responsibility/guilt in any way, either. In fact, now that I’ve checked, the synonyms offered directly below “notorious” (link below) include “famous”, with a helpful clarification: “known and recognized by many people.”
“Famous” (examples): “She went from poor and anonymous to rich and famous.”
Which was exactly the point I have been making all along, i.e. that whether you use the word “famous” or “infamous” in relation to Knox, what you mean is that this is what she is known for, the Kercher murder story. Full stop. Nothing about responsibility or being guilty.
Link:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...lish/notorious
Another example from Cambridge English Dictionary on “infamous” in particular:
“Franklin Roosevelt spoke of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor as
“a day that will live in infamy.”
This means that the day of the Pearl Harbour attack, understandably, gets a bad press, but it doesn’t imply any “fault” or “responsibility” on the part of the day itself, Sunday 7th December 1941. I don’t think you or anyone would argue that the above sentence implies the day had anything to do with the attack, it might have equally occurred on the 8th. Yet the day is still infamous.
So that’s that out of the way.
The reason why context is so important in this case is because, due to the scandalous nature of tabloid reporting during the first few years of Knox's case, it was presented as truth that Knox was guilty of some kind of debauched behavior. Maybe not a cold-blooded murder, but someone whose taste in sex and drugs led to her being irresponsible over the life of her roommate. Now that the facts are clear, many years and appeals later, to still consider Knox "infamous" is to suggest that she was responsible for acting recklessly or disreputably at the time.
Hopefully, the above addresses my usage of “infamous” in sufficient detail. I would also add, seeing as you quite reasonably appeal to context, that if I were to read a random hypothetical review of
Whitney (2015), the midsection could go as something like this: “The film looks at the prodigy’s rise to fame. It also explores the singer’s turbulent relationship with Bobby Brown.” We know that, obviously, “prodigy” and “singer” are words that not only aren’t synonymous, but refer to completely unrelated concepts. Yet they, in this context, can be used interchangeably to refer to one and the same person, Whitney Houston. Which is exactly how I was using “famous” and “infamous”. Context, as you say, is everything.
This is why it is ludicrous to suggest that "fame" and "infamy" are interchangeable here. It is not an opinion based in evident fact, and it is a rather perfect example of the profound long-term harm that Knox has had to suffer at the hands of....
Mine or anyone else’s use of language does not cause harm to Knox. It is her reaction to it that does.
Nope. It is true as a matter of fact, based on the case record. The decisions and behavior of the Italian police and tabloid editors is available for anyone to see. It factually happened that Knox was maliciously used for their mutually parasitic lust for headlines.
“Malicious” is not the same type of word as “hot”, or, better still, “boiling”, which is a state usually attained by substances once temperature rises to a certain specific, quantitatively measurable degree/level.
“Malicious” is an adjective that requires human judgment for its application: it requires forming an opinion about whether or not someone who is described as having done something malicious was aware of the potential negative consequences, and whether they desired or intended them. Even if the Italian police simply decided Knox would be
easier to jail, because she was young and so on, that only implies that they did so for the sake of convenience, not out of malice.
You cannot scientifically determine whether an act is “malicious” any more than you can scientifically determine whether someone “loves” someone or whether someone is “a bad person”. Hence, the term “malicious” cannot be described as “objective”.
I know that it doesn't apply to human agency.
I wouldn’t usually consider Investopedia an appropriate source for this, but just for the sake of fun, see below.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/forcemajeure.asp
“
Force majeure also encompasses human actions, however, such as armed conflict.”
Now, yes, armed conflicts are inevitably perpetrated by groups of people, not individuals. But the above demonstrates, I would hope, that yes, indeed, the term “force majeure” can “[encompass] human actions”.