<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" 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/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>HotAir</title><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/11/29/phobic-no-more/feed/</link><description>HotAir is the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary covering the Biden administration, politics, media, culture, and current elections.</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 05:21:10 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>"Phobic" no more</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[At this point in any discussion about language, someone usually pops his head above the parapet and says something to the effect of, “Calm down, language changes, and besides, it’s all about communication anyway.” This is true, and far be it for me to discourage lingua Anglica’s virtuous flexibility. But my complaint here is not so much about the changes in words’ meaning and use as it is about language that exists simultaneously in two states. “Phobia” has a clinical definition that is universally understood. It also has a colloquial — primarily political — usage that is not. The trouble is that the two uses do not coexist in separate, hermetically sealed arenas. The colloquial use has not become wholly divorced from the original use.]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:20:30 -0500</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Allahpundit]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/2012/11/29/phobic-no-more-n97899</link></item></channel></rss>