Language and political change
On using the word “looters” to refer to looters:
Feels like a good time to post AP’s guidance on the word looting: pic.twitter.com/hjxQWbSYAx
— Kimberlee Kruesi (@kkruesi) May 31, 2020
I have a better idea. Why not call them “undocumented shoppers”?
And isn’t that AP style guidance racist, anyway, assuming that black people are the ones looting?
But of course the changes in language are not limited to this moment, or to looters and looting. Get up-to-date on the newest Newspeak.
About a year ago this comment was made on the blog:
One fundamental principle – identified and exploited by both Goebbels’ Propagandaministerium and the KGB in Soviet Russia – is that endless repetition of a slogan infallibly modifies most people’s perception and reaction.
Pavlov – think about that – has been one of the few (the only one?) scientists whose research was constantly supported and financed in the USSR, even if he openly refused to accept the Marxist ideology.
…[E]verybody who comes from the left…knows that dissent means expulsion; so, any leftist develops a special ear capable of recognizing a new dogma: in articles and speeches given by the cool people in the cool places, a term begins to be used as if it were an indisputable evidence and those who “incredibly” refuse to accept it are gradually described as controversial, then conservative and eventually Fascist.
We constantly see this in action. “Moving the Overton Window” is another name for the goal of the process of language “reform,” which is to change public perceptions of what is acceptable and what is radical, and to make the once-radical now acceptable. There are many ways the left accomplishes this, but a major one is through language. The left recognized early on that changes in language are not superficial, and it became a big tool for them.
In the French Revolution, language was used for this purpose when people were instructed to call each other “citizen”, and in the USSR a similar phenomenon occurred:
Upon abolishing the titles of nobility in France, and the terms monsieur and madame (literally, “my lord” and “my lady”), the revolutionaries employed the term citoyen for men and citoyenne for women (both meaning “citizen”) to refer to each other…
When the socialist movement gained momentum in the mid-18th century, socialists elsewhere began to look for a similar egalitarian alternative to terms like “Mister”, “Miss”, or “Missus”. In German, the word Kamerad had long been used as an affectionate form of address among people linked by some strong common interest…In English, the first known use of the word “comrade” with this meaning was in 1884 in the socialist magazine Justice.
In the late 19th century Russian Marxists and other leftist revolutionaries adopted as a translation of the word “Kamerad” the Russian word tovarishch, whose original meaning was “business companion”…
That’s just about forms of address, but the thing about these words is that they are used constantly in everyday life and are habitual. To change them is to change a great deal.
Some language changes are natural and emerge spontaneously from the people themselves, but some are imposed from above either through suggestion, repetition, coercion, and/or threat of punishment. Think, for example, about Canadian professor Jordan Peterson’s battle over the use of pronouns for transgendered people—he has indicated he would certainly consider using a person’s preferred pronouns, but not under coercion or threat of punishment, either by government or by SJWs. As Peterson said in this video: the left is “trying to gain linguistic supremacy in the area of public discourse.”
To gain this linguistic and ultimately ideological supremacy, the left is constantly attempting to alter speech in ways both small and large. The small ways are sometimes even more effective, because they can evade whatever radar the right may possess, and the right often adopts these linguistic changes without even realizing what’s occurring.
Orwell devoted a great portion of his masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four to this very issue of politically purposeful language change, which he viewed as central to leftist thought. In fact, I believe that his coinage and discussion of Newspeak was the beating heart of his book and a huge, memorable, and especially meaningful reason why it became so widely read and influential.
As Humpty Dumpty said [emphasis mine]:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’?” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Excellent points! Orwell famously and brilliantly wrote: Who controls the past, controls the future/Who controls the present controls the past. It is equally true that whoever controls the language and the terms of discourse will dominate any and all debate and discussion.
How about “unserviced shoppers”?
It’s possible for too much stew to be made of this oyster. The idea that language constrains thought and discourse is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and it simply hasn’t held up when compared with the real world.
For example there are languages with no words for “yes” or “no”–roughly about as many as do have them–yet people can still agree and disagree, consent and refuse, etc. If a language has no word for “run” that doesn’t mean the people who speak it are incapable of running.
Like Sun Tzu instructing his readers to leave the enemy an ‘out’. People fight harder when they’re cornered.
The thought police take acceptable words away and give new ones in their place: give people options and the less astute won’t feel penned in, cornered.
Language control is still the most effective form of thought control.
Want a haircut? You’re a dangerous irresponsible virus spreader.
Wannna riot and steal a big screen tv? You’re a hero and antifascist.
The heyday of Sapir-Whorf was the 1930s – 1950s, which I think is why 1984 partakes so much of it, it was an idea very much in the popular consciousness.
Here’s Rod Rosenstein with some solid encouragement for those who’ve been despairing that humor in this day and age seems to have simply…disappeared:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/rod-rosenstein-on-fisa-lies-im-accountable-but-not-responsible.php
Thanks, Rod!
Regarding those who don’t really care for words all that much, maybe your thing is numbers. Here are some “interesting” statistics (not that statistics have that great a reputation either mind you, well unless you’re a baseball fan):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/the-institutional-racism-canard/
I guess the major question about articles such as this one is whether anyone will pay attention to them or whether it will be tossed in the “I know what I know don’t bother me with the facts” bin…
“To gain this linguistic and ultimately ideological supremacy”
Not to quibble but reality is and always will be supreme. The examples offered of the power of language control are all profoundly broken and dysfunctional societies. Look at the pitiful state of civil society in the former Soviet Union, for example.
Calling an orange an apple doesn’t actually make it an apple, which is important when you’re allergic to oranges.
Mike
MBunge:
I’m not sure you’re correct.
Please see this.
Frederick:
This has nothing to do with Sapir-Whorf. I’m not saying that a thought is impossible without the proper word for it. I’m saying that the left is aware that language does make certain thoughts easier and others verboten, and it takes more effort to buck that. You see the evidence all around you. People who used to be against illegal aliens find “undocumented immigrants” to be just peachy keen. There are tons of examples of the phenomenon. Nor does the language change exist in a vacuum; it doesn’t do the job all by itself. But it’s an important part of it, and that’s why the left invests so much effort into it.
Manipulating language to persuade and advertise can be relatively innocuous, such as advertising. I say, “relatively”.
On the other hand, manipulating language for political ends often comes bundled with coercion, enforcement and a concerted campaign of intimidation. The pressure placed on a person can be social/psychological or it can be physical, or it can be both, working in tandem or the former often morphing into the latter.
When someone is trying to control the language you use, they ARE trying to control the way you think, and ultimately the way you behave and the decisions you make.
Fear and intimidation can “work wonders”. Ask anyone who was enmeshed in such a situation and was able, somehow, to remain true to self and extricate him or herself from such a cult-like situation (whether political or quasi-religious).
It is REAL and it can be torturous. And lethal.
On the other hand, some people, not too many perhaps, can withstand it, can defeat it. Pilots, and others, were given training on how to withstand torture and brainwashing techniques should they be captured. Anatoly (Natan) Scharansky wrote in his memoirs that he was able to withstand long periods of solitary confinement in Soviet prisons by replaying chess matches in his head, which helped maintain his sanity (a good reason to learn how to play chess, perhaps…).
One should never dismiss the mind games that people, and organizations, and regimes, can play with your head.
Of course, words that are drummed into one (especially from a tender age) can be a force for good.
“Be prepared.”
“Good thoughts, good words, good deeds.”
“Women and children first.”
“Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Or “Do unto others as you would have them to unto you.”)
Etc….
Manipulation for good?
Certainly.
When one gets older, one can chuck it if one wishes. But you can’t ever chuck something you never had in the first place.
(And then, if you want, you can come back to it when you get older…)
It is like the old days. “We got these outside agitators comin’ in here stirring up our looters!”
Funny, but changes in language do not cause me to adjust my perspective.
Gay is happy feel good, the correct word is homosexual.
Transgender is a word describing a type of mental illness, there only two sexes.
Social justice means exactly nothing, the only form of justice is found under the rule of law. When the rule of law is soggy dead anarchy flourishes, and there is no law under anarchy.
There are other examples.
“Undocumented shoppers”. Well put Neo.
Semantic games. Show me the principles!
I guess the black drug dealer on the corner is now an undocumented pharmacist.
“I think it would be a serious mistake on the part of President Trump to use the military to stop orderly, peaceful, nonviolent protests,” Cong. John Lewis (D-GA). Notice how Lewis has morphed what President Trump said, which was to use the “U.S. military” against rioters and looters, and not against peaceful protestors, a distinction which Trump has made repeatedly. Did the interviewer on CBS This Morning ask him whether he meant that looting, burning, and attacking the police and civilians were a form of “orderly, peaceful, nonviolent protest? As my Crim Law professor always said, “To ask the question is to answer it.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-serious-mistake-for-trump-to-use-military-to-quash-protests/ar-BB152a4X?ocid=msedgntp
Note also that neither Lewis or any of the People’s Commisariat of Propaganda (aka MSM) have mentioned that the National Guard is part of the U.S. military, and that the President may federalize them, which many presidents have done in cases of riot.
Oh, well, 2 + 2 = 5, and we have always been at war with Oceania.
“I think it would be a serious mistake on the part of President Trump to use the military to stop orderly, peaceful, nonviolent protests,” Cong. John Lewis (D-GA).
Richard Saunders: As a young man John Lewis was a Freedom Rider during the Civil Rights movement and that meant something.
However, I’m not going to forget that he was one of the black congressmen who lied that the Tea Party used the N-word against them. As far as I’m concerned, Lewis is just another race hustler these days. And he’s still at it.
huxley – Lewis and the press are not alone in that deliberate substitution of meaning.
Per Snow on Pine on another thread, Gen. Mattis is also part of the crew.
See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/former-trump-secdef-mattis-joins-resistance-blasts-president-handling-riots-nazi-slur/
Sentence 1 conflates rioters with peaceful protestors.
Sentence 2 was never uttered by Mattis about the Obama/FBI/CIA spying on Trump.
FWIW – I have a couple of more things to say about General Mattis.
(1) He is retired; thus, he is a civilian, and entitled to say anything he wants about anything he wants. I disagree with his POV, obviously. However, despite his experience and training, he is NOW just another pundit.
(2) What I agree with, on the other hand, is that any President needs to use extreme care about ordering military forces to confront American citizens (even TWANLOC) because it sets a very bad precedent.
Given that several presidents have, in fact, done so (lists are floating around the web), the case for force needs to be so clear and so compelling, and so urgent, that the legitimacy of the order should not be questioned (it will be, of course; “should not” isn’t the same as “can not”).
There are many people in the right-wing blogosphere who are very confident that, if a Democrat president sends troops out to round up conservatives, the soldiers would disobey. However, that is not a bet I would choose to make, especially in the current partisan circus.
Troops that would obey orders to fire on Antifa arsonists would also fire on Constitutionalists perceived (even if just by the governing party) to be endangering life or property.
AesopFan:
During the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, this happened:
Language is important.
One of the great coups is that folk here, including Neo, prefer to talk about “the Left” rather than “Democrats”.
Because there are some on the left, like Bernie!, who don’t call themselves Democrats.
But if the Left gets blamed, that allows voters to keep voting for “the good Dems”.
Democrats should be blamed. Democrat policies should be blamed. Voters who vote Democrat should be blamed — and laughed at for voting Democrat.
We should be using “Democrat” wherever there is a bad public policy which is in place, like NYC, with a Dem mayor. Or NY State, with a Dem governor. (Or do I have to literally spell it out – Democrat?)
Only if Reps win elections will the rot in America be reduced.
Tom Grey:
I’ll tell you exactly why I do that. There’s a reason, and it’s not what you think.
For years – actually, for most of the life of this blog – I would carefully write something like “leftists and Democrats” or more often “liberals and leftists” (and sometimes I’d add “and the MSM”) in order to distinguish and point out exactly what I was talking about. This invariably would engender criticism and a big back and forth in the comments to the effect of “Why do you say that? Why not just call them all ‘leftists,’ because there’s hardly any distinction anymore and if you vote for a ‘Democrat’ that’s a euphemism and what you always get is leftist policies. So just call them all ‘leftists’ cause that’s essentially what they are.”
So now that’s what I’ve decided to do. Because that’s what they all are.
And now I get the opposite criticism. 🙂
neo, the exact thing that galvanized my “change” – actually it had been building for years but when I stopped voting for Democrats for good – was when I realized that not only had the “Michael Moore” wing taken over the party, but the “elders” who should have known better went along with it for political reasons. So all the faux moderates like say Biden and Klobuchar are really no better than the hard leftists because they will end up enacting the same policies.