1

C.W.Holeman III

Right Bar

HST Clock

LOADING HST TIME

Books in Progress

A Rainbow All of Orange

Outline


A Term At Briarwood Academy

Outline


Drafting


Revisions


Beta Reads


A Dakota Entendre

Outline


Drafting


Revisions


Beta Reads


Querying


Random Quote



Joke of the Week

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who know binary, and those who don't.

⥢ ↽ ⚙ ⇁ ⥤

The Weaponization of the English Language
19 May 2020

This morning I came across a Facebook post where there was some interesting discussion on an article about "Having a Black Partner, but Still Being a Racist." In this discussion, one of my friends stated (roughly) "Black people can be prejudiced, but it is impossible for a back person to be a racist." This is a really interesting statement, because it is a perfect example of doublespeak. I'm certain that my friend was not intending to engage in doublespeak, but was merely using the words as they were taught to him.

Doublespeak is when a small group of people intentionally try to "stealth change" the meaning of a word for their political gain. Let me make up an example of doublespeak, to demonstrate. But first, a few definitions:

Say a group of people decide (I know, this is going to be hard to picture, but stick with me) that humans should not eat meat, and that eating meat is evil; they decide that people should act like herbivores, and not omnivores, by choice. They decide to do whatever they can to discourage people from eating meat. One of the tactics they use is to try to stealth-change the meaning of a word. The word they go for is "nutrition." The actual definition of nutrition is:

nu·tri·tion
/n(y)o͞oˈtriSH(ə)n/
noun: nutrition
The process of providing or obtaining the food necessary for health and growth.

They think a very slight alteration of this word would help push people to their point of view, and they settle on the following for their "new meaning" for the word:

nu·tri·tion
/n(y)o͞oˈtriSH(ə)n/
noun: nutrition
The process of providing or obtaining the flora necessary for health and growth.

It is a very subtle change. And technically, it's not incorrect, it's merely incomplete. "Food" can consist of flora, but it can also consist of fauna, fungi, etc.

When they want to use the "old" meaning of nutrition they say, "nutrition, including meat." Which is again not incorrect, but it is an intentional way to try to trick you into thinking that nutrition does not, in and of itself, include meat.

So then the people in this group start quietly using their "new meaning" for nutrition wherever they go. Those that work for newspapers begin to use "nutrition, including meat" for a normal diet, and "nutrition" when they mean a vegetarian diet. Those that are teachers (particularly those in higher academia) split the phrases, and tell their students:

"You are wrong. Nutrition always means 'nutrition without meat'. If you mean 'nutrition with meat' you must write that in your paper. As you used this word incorrectly, I am reducing your grade on this paper. Perhaps when you were a child you could be sloppy, but here in University we require precision of language."

If you try to argue that they are using an incorrect definition of the word, they just wave it away saying "language changes all the time! It's practically alive."

Once they have started this campaign of change, quietly, they start saying things like "That burger doesn't contain any nutrition! You need to eat something with nutrition in it, or you can't be healthy." Half of their statement is correct, and the other half is not. One does "need to eat something with nutrition in it, or you can't be healthy." However, the lie implicit in this is that "meat is not food."

Today, politicians (and particularly progressives) use this method of gradual, intentional, stealth changes to language to gain a political edge. For who, after all, is against "nutrition?"

Racism

In the same manner, who, in their right mind, would support a "racist"?

Racism, actual meaning: Discriminatory actions or attitudes on the basis of race.

Racism, doublespeak definition: The systemic structure within the United States of discriminitory actions & attitudes where disadvantages for all non-white races are intentionally woven into the fabric of society to advantage whites, and disadvantage non-whites.

By this doublespeak definition, "racism" is only possible for white people, and if you are non-white, you cannot, by very definition, be a racist. Additionally, if you are white, you are by definition a racist.

By using this methodology you can then paint your political opponents as racist, and therefore inherently bad. If your opponent is inherently bad, then the only logical, sensible, choice is to vote for the non-racist.

If you (as a black person) ask your (white) opponent on a debate stage, "All else being equal, should an American vote for a racist or a non-racist?" The obvious, and only, answer to which is "All else being equal, the non-racist, of course." Your response can then be "You heard it, America, from his own lips. My opponent thinks you should vote for me, and not him, as he is white, and is therefore -by definition- a racist."

This is why the actual definitions of words matter. Is "language changing as it always has," or is the English language being weaponized?