Well, here's another specific example.
There is a blog written to review the medical accuracy of House MD, a TV show that airs on Fox.
Since I've been enjoying House lately, I've also taken to reading the reviews on medical accuracy. You may not watch the show, but I'm getting to my point.
Here is the blog:
It's written by one of those general practitioners who seem to enjoy House, but obviously has to point out the medical inaccuracies and misconceptions.
Anyway, here's our pertinent review:
If you aren't familiar with how House MD works, well, it's a show about a misanthropic diagnostician named House. He's brilliant, eccentric, erratic and antisocial. Incidentally, he's also an atheist. He's basically a medical Sherlock Holmes.
So no episode of House would be complete if he didn't have his underlings break into peoples' homes to see if there are any environmental causes to whatever puzzling disease besets our victim in today's episode. Often, this acts fuel for the drama since it airs out all sorts of dirty secrets that the patient was deliberately concealing. (In House's immortal words: "Everybody lies.")
In this specific case:
Our patient is one of those Ren-fair types who roleplays a knight full-time but secretly practices "witchcraft." So he dabbles in alchemy; which has all sorts of potential for lead poisoning.
The reviewer, to quote:
"What was up with that whole occult/witchcraft angle? That came out of nowhere and added nothing to the episode, other than proving once again that TV writers canâ€™t separate the wiccans, pagans, and occultists."
I'm agreed on the former point. But it's sort of the latter point and following commentary that also added to my bafflement over the whole Wiccan thing. Maybe it's horribly cavalier of me, but I don't see a terribly significant difference between "wiccans, pagans and occultists."
It seems to me that Wiccans are usually going to be occultists who pretend towards some kind of ancient lineage and genuine historicity. At the end of the day, it just looks like the usual "No True Scotsman" accusation being thrown about. And as pointed out, we could also say that Wiccans are pagans but not all pagans are Wiccans. The irony is staggering.
In short, it's just a stupid and arbitrary word.
So when I see a doctor, a supposed man of science
, feeling like he has to speak up for religious tolerance in the most inanely politically correct way possible, I go a little crazy.
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes or something. Somebody. Please. Point out the obvious.