Comment by Joeboy
6 days ago
The point, I think, is that that The Post Office acted like part of the state, notably in that they acted like an unconstrained branch of the CPS in bringing prosecutions against thousands of people.
> Maybe in some fringe circles
I would say the fringe circles co-opted it over the last couple of decades, and the term's obviously become heavily associated with them in some people's minds (eg. yours). But it's an older term than that.
Edit: Why would the loons have adopted it, if it was such a disreputable term?
> The point, I think, is that that The Post Office acted like part of the state
I agree. The are part of the state. They are a standalone company, but wholly owned by the state. But other aspects of the state (eventually) reacted to the injustice: MPs, select committees, ministers, the public inquiry, and hopefully next the legal system as some of these people should be in jail.
> But it's an older term than that.
Fine, I’m happy to accept that. Just like I’m happy to accept that R&B has nothing to do with BB King any more (well, actuality I still struggle with that).
Definitions and usage change. The current usage is the one that matters. Not the legacy definition.
When the original poster wrote “massive deep state cover-up” I think the implication is that shadowy figures throughout the state are pulling cover-up levers, when it was one privately owned company and one publicly owned company. The rest of the state moved (albeit slowly) to expose this and make it right.
I think your struggle with shifting meanings is a worthwhile one. At least, if you said BB King was an R&B artist, and somebody tried to correct you, you'd be within your rights to stand your ground.
But particularly with regard to politics, I don't think you should let go of useful ideas because arseholes pollute them. At least, it feels uncomfortably like letting the arseholes win, to me.