Why Language Matters; Control Language and You'll Control the World

in #language7 years ago

When I say "capitalism" what's the first that comes to your mind?

Freedom? Prosperity? Well being?

Probably not.

It's more likely the things that spring to mind are things such as unemployment, poverty, hopelessness, the wealthy few oppressing the unlucky many. Et cetera, and so on.

This is because the word "capitalism" carries with it a particular connotation, and that connotation is by no means an accident.

It's the result of years, decades, and centuries of manipulation by people who oppose the idea of free trade. This connotation has taught people to resist their freedom at all costs.

What I'm trying to say is language holds an immense power; language is way more than merely a tool to convey our ideas, it is, in fact, language that can dictate our ideas.

I've felt for a long time now that people on the right have blind spots when it comes to things like culture and language, which is probably because people on the right tend to be more into the pure practicality of things, instead of studying them further.

It's not just the left that's done this historically; language manipulation has been a political tool throughout history, but currently, the left is the political movement most prominent in changing our language.

You can take a phrase like sexism, for instance.

Here in the west, we've been taught that both sexes are equal, and therefore sexism is wrong.

Sexism, in and of itself, has a very negative connotation. No one wants to be a sexist, and it's generally agreed that sexism is wrong, and should not be practiced.

Let's say that by sexism people mean discriminating against a person based on his or her gender.

Since "equality" has a feel-good connotation to it, and sexism is its opposite, sexism becomes wrong.

And we can accept that.

But let's say the definition of sexism starts to move around and broaden. Before you know it, sexism means hiring a more qualified male employee, instead of a less qualified female employee.

Now, the negative connotation of the word "sexism" remains intact; it's just that it starts to mean different things, slowly but surely.

People still refuse to identify as sexists, because they know that being sexist is wrong, so they change their behavior by starting to reject hiring a more qualified male employee, and instead aspire for what will then become known as "equality." In other words, they employ a less skilled female in order to prevent being sexist.

They also begin to reject companies that still engage in the old employment practices.

The above is just a minor example.

The same mechanisms can be applied to words such as "racism", as well as phrases like "sexual harassment".

First, sexual harassment means touching someone against their will, which people react to negatively.

And similarly, the adverse reaction remains, but the definition of the word changes from touching someone to merely flirting at a bar.

The left has always been exceptionally skilled with connotations; it's all about feelings, and manipulating emotions is probably the most efficient form of manipulation there is since most people won't even notice.

Just like an Audi commercial makes you feel inadequate as a man, unless you own an Audi, and makes you want to spend your money on one, the left uses the same techniques when it comes to language.

Notice how the left calls themselves liberals, by the way?

Ever wondered why that is?

It's because freedom has such a positive connotation. Everybody wants to be free with no one telling them what to do and when to do it.

However, studying the actual behavior from the left, it's easy to see that they support anything but freedom, and in are opposed to it in a multitude of ways.

But, again, they have changed the definition of the word "freedom".

In liberal-speak, freedom means the freedom to whatever the hell you want, without being responsible for anything, whereas classic liberalism always emphasized the personal responsibility that comes with individual freedom.

People react positively to freedom; ergo, like Pavlov's dogs, they respond positively to modern liberalism.

This changing of definitions can, and does, hugely affect how people view the world around them. If, for instance, sexual harassment means receiving innocent flirting at a nightclub, people start to talk about how much they experience sexual harassment, and it distorts the idea of how prevalent sexual harassment is.

Let's say we begin to talk about littering by using the word "murder".

Soon enough, your view of the world has completely changed when the people around have admitted to committing murder at least three times this week alone.

Your view of the world now has nothing to do with reality. You think the world is a lot more dangerous and violent than it actually is.

This is why I've written about several times already that language is important, damn it. And definitions are important. Language is a critically important tool for us to use.

Let's not it fall into the wrong hands because, in the wrong hands, it's the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction of them all.

When you control language, you control the people who use the language.

Sort:  

It's the result of years, decades, and centuries of manipulation

It's the result of years, decades, and centuries of manipulation observation.

FTFY

Before you know it, sexism means hiring a more qualified male employee, instead of a less qualified female employee.

No, it remains hiring male employees regardless of female employees' qualifications.

And similarly, the adverse reaction remains, but the definition of the word changes from touching someone to merely flirting at a bar.

Again, no. No one calls flirting harassment, it becomes harassment when you keep bothering a girl after she's told you no already.

The manipulation you're seeing here comes from Conservatives, who complain about situations the words don't mean in order to make it seem as though liberals are over-reaching.

There's no way you can actually believe that.

I'm sorry to say, but you are factually incorrect in your statements.

Sexual harassment has been called "anything a woman considers sexual harassment". And, of course, can mean absolutely anything. No way the definition for something that serious should be that loose.

Also, male dominance in work places, and certain fields, is complained about all the time. Even though women themselves don't show as much interest in said fields. It's blamed on sexism all the time.

Calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact.

I've personally hit on women at bars and never been accused of harassment. Finding a couple feminazis who overreach doesn't mean anything, we can all cherry pick examples of the other side going too far. Pretending all liberals think flirting is harassment is no different than accusing all conservatives of being Nazis.

The "sexism" part of women not being in other fields is a lot more complicated than you make it sound; but it mostly has to do with the harassment women get when trying to enter those fields. And I don't mean just sexual harassment.

It's interesting, actually, that you start off saying conservatives manipulate words then go on to rant only about conservatives. It's a good propaganda technique, to make yourself sound fair and balanced while you actually only attack the other side.

The bottom line here is that you're engaging in exactly what I'm talking about: Arguing against a definition that doesn't exist, to make it seem like the other side is manipulating the definition.

Generalizing purely from your own experiences is a common logical fallacy.

Just because Person A hasn't experienced something, doesn't mean said something doesn't exist, period.

I believe you meant to say that I focused on liberals?

Yes, I focused on them because their re-definitions of words like sexism and racism are such blatant examples of what I was talking about.

Generalizing purely from your own experiences is a common logical fallacy.

Well, I had a meeting starting when I wrote the last post so didn't have time to look something up. Now that I have, here you go:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/feminist-guide-to-non-creepy-flirting/

Exactly what I said, feminists aren't against flirting they just want to be treated with respect.

See, a non-propaganda piece would have also used a conservative manipulation that was equally qualified. Like shouting Freedom when they want to pass laws restricting freedoms, like anti-drug laws and restricting religions. Or implying liberals are fascist with a tag, while the Republican President adopts ever more fascist behavior like trying to get a book shut down or attacking the press.

Define respect. You're doing exactly what I write about in the post.

There's "respect" and "flirting". Two words that can mean anything, so they won't take us anywhere with this.

How women feel about flirting depends largely on who is doing the flirting. If a socially awkward, overweight geek grabs them by the backside, it's harassment, but if it's Brad Pitt, it's him being confident.

And mind you: this is actually natural, since women have a built-in mechanism to sway off mating partners that would not make for good fathers for their offspring.

So did you not read the article I linked? Because that spelled it out pretty clearly.

Love how you vote for every single one of your own posts.

And didn't give anything to the guy who brought up the subject.

Pretty much tells me everything I need to know about you. Notice how the guy you are debating isn't doing that?

Progressives are always self dealing while they scream about how unfair everyone else is. Never changes.

Socialism = theft from production via governments

Socialists = A person scared of competition. Of life. The natural order of things.

(and explains why they want to disrupt the natural order of everything - through weak pseudo intellectual masturbation)

Exactly.

Because their experience consists of repeatedly coming up short in a meritocracy, they instead choose to gang up on the successful using greater numbers to overpower the successful, telling themselves that the successful got that way solely through graft and abuse of power, and thus that they are merely righting a wrong when they themselves use the power of numbers to force the scales in their own direction, and thus count themselves as heroic and righteous for doing the same thing they castigate others for doing.

It's a giant mind f_ck.

Love how you vote for every single one of your own posts.

And didn't give anything to the guy who brought up the subject.

LOL. I voted up two of my own comments, and no I didn't upvote his post because I massively disagree with it and think it is propaganda. If you look back you'll see I have upvoted other posts of his.

Pretty much tells me everything I need to know about you. Notice how the guy you are debating isn't doing that?

I really wouldn't care if he did. Upvotes are worth cash. I've had good debates with plenty of people who upvoted their own comments.

Progressives are always self dealing while they scream about how unfair everyone else is. Never changes.

LOL. As if you needed to reveal you were biased. Stop reading all the propaganda about progressives and maybe realize they are people too.

They are people, indeed - and deserve all the help they can get- to try to return them to good mental health..

it becomes harassment when you keep bothering a girl after she's....

That's a sexist statement. Assumption of gender roles?

Or it's not - because the vast number of cases is males harassing female.

Of course - that being the case- You are also saying the sexes are different, ergo not equal....

Pesky logic...

No, we were discussing a specific situation @schattenjaeger brought up. If a man said no and the woman kept bothering him it would also be harassment.

In fact if any person says they don't want to talk to you and you keep pressuring them to talk it is harassment.

So a person can decide - at anytime - if they are being harassed or not ?

If someone is talking to them, (no matter what is being said), the recipient of the words can choose to be a victim at any point?

"I'm a victim, I'm a victim!", kind of thing...? seriously?

Wow, way to ignore what I said.

Although even at that, yes they could but literally everyone would laugh at them if the other person just said "hi" and they started screaming harassment.

But hey, feel free to give me your phone number and I'll just keep calling you. Because no one can be harassed, right?

Although even at that, yes they could but literally everyone would laugh at them if the other person just said "hi" and they started screaming harassment.

Exactly. Hence the universal eye rolling of the adults in the room about the ubiquitous shrieks of "racism!" and "harassment!" coming from the juveniles over on the Progressive side. Just turns into white noise.

Glad we understand each other.

Should I upvote my own comment here?

Except you're assuming that's what happens as a defensive measure. Neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence that a majority of progressives are screaming racism/sexism over silly matters. In fact, what happened here is that op made the claim that progressives call flirting harassment and I presented an article from a feminist website telling exactly how to flirt respectively.

An article that was ignored, btw, because it doesn't fit op's narrative.

I'm typing on my phone so can't easily copy the link but I just made a blog post about this kind of tactic so maybe check that out.

In short it's an attempt to discredit a group based on a straw man argument.

Otherwise, I notice you didn't give me your phone number. What, are you afraid I'll call you once and be polite?

You are mischaracterizing the article. The post was about the power and danger of words, and that we should be careful that we don't allow definitions to drift.

That's not what you want to talk about, which is why you mischaracterize it. And then claim that people posting comments are mischaracterizing the article that you mischaracterized first. And then when you are called on this mischaracterization and it is pointed out that dealing with persistent mischaracterizations and attempts to derail and redirect arguments is what makes discussion with Progressives so frustrating, you claim that people are making false generalizations.

And thus the real topic never gets addressed, now does it....

Neat debating trick -- for sophomores. But some of us tire of the BS. We'd like to have productive discussions. Rather than wade through ridiculous requests for phone numbers and financial dick swinging contests.

Last post goes to you -- have fun.

Agree. The more languages you speak, the more open you are to understand the world and the better you will understand it.

Yoyo...I agree with you my dear friend ...By language do control every thing ...It is language which can control every matter...
Thanks for your most valuable blog..
Carry on my dear ...

Best of luck ...

I love the content, you have my vote and I follow you. I think that the word is power.

This is one of most insightful posts I've ever come across. How people often trivialise what seems as the most important still baffles me in our world today.
Words are very powerful and every phase of communication must be meticulously monitored to achieve the right purpose of language use.

Just reading the book "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari this fits perfectly in how the book describes language and the art of communication in big groups being the number one thing setting us above animals.

And of course all political movements, companies, leaders and ultimately all people try to use language to their advantage. This has nothing to do with left or right. This is just how we work. Ultimately, everybody acts in a way which he thinks will benefit himself - Even if he or she won't admit that.

That's astute. I didn't realize how the meaning of the word "liberal" had changed. And defining "sexual harassment" and "sexual assault" is becoming problematic. I have read numerous articles where the "objective" reporter wrote about how a man said something the woman didn't like so she had been "sexually assaulted." I've also read about how asking for a woman's phone # is being portrayed as sexual harassment. That's scary.

Slightly self-referential, this posting 8-P.

Dude, this is not how you steem! You're supposed to pat me on the back and say "Thanks for sharing!"

Seriously, though, thanks for the criticism, and you may be right, too. Not my best outing at conveying this idea, I don't feel.

But alas, it's on the blockchain now.

Sorry, a slip up. Won't happen again. I will revert to role when commenting on your next posting, I've made a checklist and a procedure that should force me to stay within recommended Steemit positivity boundaries.

You're right. The left has always been very good in propaganda and uses terminology and definitions to the full, making the most of it. You see how today we say that the Nazis were fascists, but fascist was Mussolini not Hitler, those who told the Nazis fascists were the Soviets, so they did not admit that the Nazis were National Socialists, they did not want socialism in that.

They also did the same thing using the neoliberal term. They want to remove the positive connotation that liberalism carries and they want to make a gap between the movements that brought freedom to America, and the movements that promote freedom today.

Nowadays they are doing the same, they want to separate the negative connotation that the communist term implies, that is why they do not define themselves as communists and if they do so as socialists.

Curated for #informationwar by @stevescoins
Relevance:
-use of propaganda to support anti-liberty ideologies
-nicely done article...I'd invite you to use the #informationwar tage for future stories along these lines, see Our Purpose
Our Purpose

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63315.26
ETH 2668.31
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.79