The English language is losing meaning. The word compare means to match one thing with another. The relative heights of Jones and Smith can be shown by comparing them. One is taller than the other. That's a comparison. If you offer an idea and seek to support it by pointing out that George Washington had the same idea as you do, some genius will accuse you of comparing yourself with George Washington as if you had claimed to have the same brilliance and character as Washington. Let's be clear: Any person can be compared with any other person for some purpose or in some context without claiming any moral or intellectual equivalence. You and Adolf Hitler have two ears. That's a comparison. Or at least that's all it used to mean. Today, perhaps, it means that you are an evil dictator. Our language is suffering.
Another example is the word discrimination. It simply means making a distinction. If you select a dozen tomatoes from a larger number at a market you are practicing discrimination. For some time past, however, the word is applied to any distinction that someone doesn't like, as if it always means something bad. Yes, sometimes it does, as with racial discrimination. It's bad, invidiuous, unconstitutional in almost any context when sanctioned by law. But preferring certain foods over others, or some movies over others, is not bad or invidious or unconstitutional. It is discrimination but there's nothing wrong with it. In fact it is a discriminating comparison.
Here's a good one --- controversial. When liberal newspapers (but I repreat myself) want to report something that a conservative said it will be "Joe Shmo, the controversial [senator, scientist, whatever] said in a speech before the controversial organization . . .". It's controversial because the paper doesn't like Joe Shmo, a conservative, or what he said or the conservative organization before which he said it. Joe thinks the ABC Widget bill is great. He's controversial. Jack Spratt, a liberal, thinks it's absolutely horrible. He's just . . . well, he's just Jack Spratt. There's a controversy going on but only people on one side of it are controversial. Folks on the other side are just people on the other side.
Try this one on --- historical. If the liberals like something it's historical. That can apply to almost anything. Any time a liberal babbles Marxist drivel it's yeah, historical. New York State just adopted gay marriage and that's you-know-what. Before that, at least 31 states specifically rejected it. Were those historical events in the language of liberal-speak? Sure, and I'm a giraffe. Any time the word appears in a media outlet you can bet the farm (or at least the back 40) that you are about to be told about something liberals like. It's part of the world in liberal-land.
Here's a good one; Studies Show . . . Boy that proves it! "Studies show that all nice people are Liberal Democrats". If you ask what "studies" or where the survey was conducted, or its size, you're a right wing extremist and probably a racist. What people? How many people? Name a few. Do they wish to remain anonymous?
If you think 'studies' are being overdone just say experts say. That can be rotated with critics say. If you really want to make a point you can combine all these gems in the same news story. Studies show that a growing body of experts and critics agree that Republican Senator Fumblebutt the controversial chairman of . . ." favors the Widget Bill. Really? What poll tells us that? How do we know that it is growing and not shrinking? If you think it isn't growing you're an extremist, meaning anyone I don't agree with. What was the opinion before it started to grow? Whose opinion were we talking about? What experts? What critics? Perhaps it's the writer of the "news" story, his mom, his sister, his favorite Afro-American sports announcer and his girl friend? Can't ask for more than that, can you?
And what about rhetoric? Now it means something like the slang term 'hot air'. But it's a perfectly good word. Back when public schools indulged the quaint custom of educating people there were courses in 'rhetoric'. It used to mean "the art of effective speaking". Today, of course, there is a growing body of opinion which rejects that meaning. So maybe there's no need for a word meaning "the art of effective speaking" unless speaking means "propaganda".
Here's an old favorite; speaking out. Why the "out"? Does that add something to just 'speaking'? How about 'speaking in'? A liberal co-ed at Georgetown favors free contraceptives for one and all. It's her right to have them, isn't it? So now she's speaking out about that. Conservatives never 'speak out'. They shout, or rant and rave or something else but for them speaking out is out.
How about Republican? That's an old favorite. What's wrong with that one? Nothing, when it's properly used. But it nearly always follows or precedes something the liberals don't like. "Senator Dufflepoof, Republican of Mississippi, ransacked Fort Knox, thinking he would find gold there". If Democratic Senator Bilgebutt did that it would be simply "Senator Bilgebutt of Massachusetts". Also, have you noticed that the word liberal hardly exists any more? The right word is moderate, particularly when followed by Republican. A moderate Republican is a Republican the liberals like. He or she never says anything nice about conservatives, particularly Republican conservatives, wishing to be fair and balanced.
These are code words and phrases which tell the liberal reader that the writer is one of them. By using these code words the writer can always claim, if necessary, to be simply an objective, neutral reporter of established fact. Neat, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment