The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson couldn't better define the way, essentially, our own language is being used against us by the fine folks (I employ that descriptive loosely) on the left, who manage to trample all over reality with the reapplication of a word here, another there...
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/21/changing-reality-with-words/"Beware of euphemisms. Radical changes in vocabulary are usually admissions that reality is unwelcome or indefensible."
Seth wrote:
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson couldn't better define the way, essentially, our own language is being used against us by the fine folks (I employ that descriptive loosely) on the left, who manage to trample all over reality with the reapplication of a word here, another there...
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/21/changing-reality-with-words/"Beware of euphemisms. Radical changes in vocabulary are usually admissions that reality is unwelcome or indefensible."
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson cou... (
show quote)
Intresting post.
You can call a dog a cat for years and that dog will never become a cat.
Illegal will always be illegal, criminal will always be criminal and alien will always be alien.
No matter what Dim-O-Crats call them they will alwsys be "Illegal Criminsl Aliens."
πΊπΈ God bless America and President Trump.
Seth wrote:
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson couldn't better define the way, essentially, our own language is being used against us by the fine folks (I employ that descriptive loosely) on the left, who manage to trample all over reality with the reapplication of a word here, another there...
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/21/changing-reality-with-words/"Beware of euphemisms. Radical changes in vocabulary are usually admissions that reality is unwelcome or indefensible."
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson cou... (
show quote)
All true but those who know the proper terms still use them.. The sugar coating or PCBS is gone....
Reminds me of those whom like to argue We are a democratic Republic.. They figure if said enough times it will be adopted in place of our Constitution that defines us as a Republic...That is one I will correct!!!
Seth wrote:
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson couldn't better define the way, essentially, our own language is being used against us by the fine folks (I employ that descriptive loosely) on the left, who manage to trample all over reality with the reapplication of a word here, another there...
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/21/changing-reality-with-words/"Beware of euphemisms. Radical changes in vocabulary are usually admissions that reality is unwelcome or indefensible."
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson cou... (
show quote)
My kids were never fooled when I told them my flatulence was "air reassignment"..
Seth wrote:
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson couldn't better define the way, essentially, our own language is being used against us by the fine folks (I employ that descriptive loosely) on the left, who manage to trample all over reality with the reapplication of a word here, another there...
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/21/changing-reality-with-words/"Beware of euphemisms. Radical changes in vocabulary are usually admissions that reality is unwelcome or indefensible."
The title of this piece by Victor Davis Hanson cou... (
show quote)
This is old news. Benjamin Lee Whorf long ago argued that the language one uses defines reality. Many studies have confirmed what he argued. Google language and reality and lots of studies come up.
What's interesting to me is that Mr. Hanson, and you perhaps, sees this universal as the province of the left. The piece totally ignores the possibility that the right is also changing reality with words. The term 'fake news', for example, is exactly such a word.
So while it is correct to say reality changes with words, it is incorrect to think only one political side does it.
When the right labels American Democrats as anti-American, it is also trying to create a reality. It's a 'reality' I totally reject. It does not square with my reality.
working class stiff wrote:
This is old news. Benjamin Lee Whorf long ago argued that the language one uses defines reality. Many studies have confirmed what he argued. Google language and reality and lots of studies come up.
What's interesting to me is that Mr. Hanson, and you perhaps, sees this universal as the province of the left. The piece totally ignores the possibility that the right is also changing reality with words. The term 'fake news', for example, is exactly such a word.
So while it is correct to say reality changes with words, it is incorrect to think only one political side does it.
When the right labels American Democrats as anti-American, it is also trying to create a reality. It's a 'reality' I totally reject. It does not square with my reality.
This is old news. Benjamin Lee Whorf long ago arg... (
show quote)
Apples and oranges, Mr. Stiff.
The author discusses creating an image, not necessarily an accurate one, employing nuance suggestive of a vague but more acceptable quality.
An example he gives is "progressive," which automatically renders those who believe differently as "regressive," yet as we know one man's "progress" isn't necessarily every man's progress. The same with the evolution, in name only, from illegal alien to "migrant."
What you seem to get from the column is people calling other people names or, more
accurately, calling things as they see them.
To that end, "fake news" is an accurate term. I don't know how much you know about what real journalism is, but there's very little today of what it's supposed to be. Real journalists operate on a "trust but verify" basis. You don't go to press with a story you haven't completely verified through unrelated sources.
Today, if they believe a story will make President Trump look bad, the mainstream media will report it at the drop of a hat, and worse, when the story proves false, they rarely supply a retraction. If s conservative publication did that, the Democrats would be apoplectic, because their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
lindajoy wrote:
All true but those who know the proper terms still use them.. The sugar coating or PCBS is gone....
Reminds me of those whom like to argue We are a democratic Republic.. They figure if said enough times it will be adopted in place of our Constitution that defines us as a Republic...That is one I will correct!!!
The Dems prefer mob rule over that which made America great and, as long as we can keep what we have, will keep America great.
"A republic, if you can keep it."-- Benjamin Franklin.
byronglimish wrote:
My kids were never fooled when I told them my flatulence was "air reassignment"..
You should have tried: "A belch is just a breath of air, coming from the heart. But when it takes a downward path..."
lindajoy wrote:
All true but those who know the proper terms still use them.. The sugar coating or PCBS is gone....
Reminds me of those whom like to argue We are a democratic Republic.. They figure if said enough times it will be adopted in place of our Constitution that defines us as a Republic...That is one I will correct!!!
Top of the day to you my friend lindajoy.
It's a wet 73 down here in the boondocks today, havent been able to work all week.
Got to go Nurse Janis is coming with her squate, dull needle to give me another darn shot. Already my behind loosk like a pin cousin.
πΉπ₯π»π·βππ
Then it becomes a stinker and goes out the wrong hole.
Seth wrote:
Apples and oranges, Mr. Stiff.
The author discusses creating an image, not necessarily an accurate one, employing nuance suggestive of a vague but more acceptable quality.
An example he gives is "progressive," which automatically renders those who believe differently as "regressive," yet as we know one man's "progress" isn't necessarily every man's progress. The same with the evolution, in name only, from illegal alien to "migrant."
What you seem to get from the column is people calling other people names or, more
accurately, calling things as they see them.
To that end, "fake news" is an accurate term. I don't know how much you know about what real journalism is, but there's very little today of what it's supposed to be. Real journalists operate on a "trust but verify" basis. You don't go to press with a story you haven't completely verified through unrelated sources.
Today, if they believe a story will make President Trump look bad, the mainstream media will report it at the drop of a hat, and worse, when the story proves false, they rarely supply a retraction. If s conservative publication did that, the Democrats would be apoplectic, because their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Apples and oranges, Mr. Stiff. br br The author d... (
show quote)
You are so right.
Seth wrote:
Real journalists operate on a "trust but verify" basis.
Makes you kind of wonder what happened here:
https://www.thejournal.ie/fox-news-falls-for-islamic-ban-on-padded-bras-hoax-103201-Mar2011/A link to Fox Nation's story:
https://nation.foxnews.com/campus/2011/03/13/pakistan-islamic-clerics-protest-women-wearing-padded-bras-devil-s-cushions (just in case you wanted to call B.S. on the story run by
https://www.thejoirnal.ie).
Every media outlet gets duped, to say only one side or another does is disingenuous and "fake news". That said, I read news from many sources, both from left and from right leaning sources (I avoid the extremes on both sides) and it has been my experience that conservative news tends to use far more "loaded words", words specifically chosen to direct emotional responses to news that might be taken either way or to varying degrees.
It is a journalists job to report the news, not to tell us what to make of the news being reported on.
Seth wrote:
Apples and oranges, Mr. Stiff.
The author discusses creating an image, not necessarily an accurate one, employing nuance suggestive of a vague but more acceptable quality.
An example he gives is "progressive," which automatically renders those who believe differently as "regressive," yet as we know one man's "progress" isn't necessarily every man's progress. The same with the evolution, in name only, from illegal alien to "migrant."
What you seem to get from the column is people calling other people names or, more
accurately, calling things as they see them.
To that end, "fake news" is an accurate term. I don't know how much you know about what real journalism is, but there's very little today of what it's supposed to be. Real journalists operate on a "trust but verify" basis. You don't go to press with a story you haven't completely verified through unrelated sources.
Today, if they believe a story will make President Trump look bad, the mainstream media will report it at the drop of a hat, and worse, when the story proves false, they rarely supply a retraction. If s conservative publication did that, the Democrats would be apoplectic, because their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Apples and oranges, Mr. Stiff. br br The author d... (
show quote)
My mistake. You are correct. The title is intriguing and accurate, but then the author does not follow through. The idea that words and language change reality is well documented.
Instead the author just goes through the usual rebranding exercise....liberals and democrats, bad; conservatives and republicans good.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.