Violent and excessive killing does not become terrorism because a leftist feels it should be labeled such. In reality, this is a sleight of hand, because it is the leftist selectively labeling. Except that many on the Right were quick to label the Charleston shooter a domestic terrorist, and while the motive of the recent Las Vegas shooter remains unknown, conservatives labeled him with nuance from the available information. This tactic combines several others, because it suggests that Republicans and conservatives are selectively using the term against Islamist extremists. A crowd of leftists will cry foul when a white male is not immediately labeled a terrorist following any abhorrent crime before facts are known. In general conversation, however, it simply means something causing terror or great violence. The word has a legal definition, which is anchored in the actors’ beliefs and intentions, not others’ outcomes or perceptions.
While “assault rifle” is one example, a more explosive one is “terrorism.” The play here is almost always to swap out the legal or technical word for the connotation from casual conversation. Modifiers that draw emotion can effectively shape new public policy based on feelings and not objective facts.įollowing very closely is substituting words to suit the political narrative. Tinkering with language and misusing words results in opinion polls in which 92 percent of people support “universal background checks” without realizing that would prevent a friend or family member from selling or trading a gun privately. The effect is a stronger connotation, which plays on people’s emotion and visceral reactions to the phrase.
PRAGER U DICTIONARY UPDATE
In the case of firearms, the new popular phrase is “assault rifle.” Webster’s Dictionary was happy to update its definition to help nudge society in the right direction. When the word cannot be flipped, other words are sometimes added to suggest a new meaning. Who doesn’t want to support a policy that is “progressive,” “pro-choice,” or “affordable”? This is no accidental misnomer, but strategic messaging to influence people. In reality, there is nothing liberal about failing to protect life, burdening individuals with regulations and taxes, or forcing individuals to provide services to others. It was adopted because of its positive connotation, and used as a cover for imposing greater leftist control under the guise of liberty. The classic example is the word “liberal,” which the far-left co-opted. Situational use starts to condition how people feel about words, building up a new connotation.
The entire purpose of defined language is to hold constant meaning so others can understand. It starts with misusing words or defining them based on circumstance rather than objective meaning. Each of these is a bullying tactic, which distort effective discourse. The schemes include redefining words for personal gain, using modifiers to alter the meaning of a word, replacing technical words with colloquial ones, and creating new words. This isn’t innocent linguistic drift or slang it is a conscious effort to reshape society. Underlying each tactic is misuse of words. At Prager University, Michael Knowles exposes this tactic and how it affects the culture. Word games take many forms, and honest people must call it out. We are a hair’s width and an ounce of stupidity away from “war is peace, freedom is slavery.”
Words can now literally be defined with their antonym. Any twentieth-century liberal who walked onto a college campus today would be more confused than the town drunk from Babel straggling into town the morning after a bender. I don’t know when it started or with what word, but the modern American lexicon is changing faster than society can keep up. Through linguistic activism, leftists have begun a full-scale war on language, playing by their own set of constantly shifting rules. On college campuses, social media, and in the courts, this shared meaning is being destroyed. Language provides an avenue to express shared meaning so humans can relate to one another. Whether we are communicating something simple like a restaurant order or something complex like a tax code, we expect others to understand.
0 kommentar(er)
