Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

More Newspeak

Entry 2391, on 2025-03-24 at 21:08:12 (Rating 3, Comments)

I have already done a blog post about "Newspeak" (a post called "Newspeak", from 2024-01-25) where I mentioned several words used by people which are designed to mislead the reader, rather than elucidate a point, and I want to add to that today.

One of the central tenets of postmodernism is that reality is constructed by language, and that each person has their "own reality", so it should be no surprise that there are many words which have either had their meaning changed, or made unclear, or even reversed in some cases.

By using these words in tactical ways a dishonest or ignorant person can confuse their opponent in a debate, or persuade people to join their cause, or to reject a group currently not in favour.

So here are a few words which are used in this way. Watch out for these. If you see them, there is a chance you are being exposed to gaslighting...

Antifa. Antifa is a group which claim they are against fascism (hence the name), but it turns out their bullying tactics, propaganda, and violence fit in remarkably well with the problem they claim they want to eliminate. They're not always wrong, of course, and have probably targeted some genuinely bad people, but in general *they* are the fascists!

BLM. I have written several times about the "Black Lives Matter" movement which is possibly the most dishonest, corrupt group I have encountered in recent years. Not only are their fundamental beliefs completely irrational, but their financial management of donations and other funds is highly questionable too. Sure, black lives *do* matter, just like all lives matter, but that doesn't mean this group has any credibility.

Diversity. It is often claimed that diversity is an inherently good thing, but while there is no doubt that it can be good in some cases, it often isn't, and the word is also used selectively. For example, if a university celebrates how diverse its workforce is, based on criteria such as race and gender, I might ask how the political diversity looks. But they would most likely answer that by saying that isn't what they mean, and the fact that their staff are 95% left politically is unavoidable.

Hate speech. This is probably the most obvious and concerning way that free speech is being compromised. Hate speech is almost always subjective. There are almost no topics which everyone would agree are hateful. So it is just too easy to select what is defined as "hateful" to suit a political perspective. For example, jokes about Muslims might be hateful, but the same jokes about Christians are OK.

Mansplaining. The suggestion here is that men often like to take over a conversation involving a woman and offer their perspective as fact, even if the woman knows more on the subject under discussion. I'm sure this does happen, but also there are situations where the opposite happens, or when the man's comment is entirely relevant and accurate. Again, this is usually just a convenient way to shut down unwanted opinions, and should be rejected.

Microaggression. A microaggression is an action that offends a sensitive person in some way, but is superficially so minor that it is barely noticed except by people who are very finely attuned to such subtle details. Of course, it is tempting to say that these things are so minor that they either are unworthy of recognition or don't exist at all, but having this as an option is a useful way to shut down opposing opinions.

Phobias. There are a lot of these: transphobia, Islamophobia, fatphobia, etc. The suffix "phobia" conventionally meant an irrational fear of something, which was caused by a psychological problem in the sufferer. So the trick here is that the implication is that if you have a phobia, that is a defect on your part. But the word is now often used to denote that you disagree with something. So if I think obese people are endangering their own health, that isn't fatphobia, it's an opinion based on facts (maybe factphilia?).

White privilege. It is alleged that all white people have a form of privilege which gives them an unfair advantage over others. But the concept is generally not well defined, so it is difficult to refute. And often, if a person does deny having it, that is used as an example of the degree to which it is present. After all, how much privilege must someone have if they don't even recognise its presence any more? But a theory which cannot be disproved isn't even wrong!

Woman. You have to wonder how we have got to a point where a question often used to show a person's political and philosophical perspective is "what is a woman?", especially when we find many prominent politicians and others can't or won't answer it (the leader of New Zealand's main opposition party, for example). Of course, the origin of this is trans ideology where people virtue signal by saying that men who transition are real women. So a common answer to "what is a woman" is "someone who identifies as a woman", but is it just me, or does that definition involve some circularity?

So that is a small selection of new or redefined words which I suggest you watch for in your next debate or discussion. Here are a few more for you to think about: words are violence, non-crime hate incident, social justice, woke, cis-gender. And yes, I know I use these words myself (especially "woke") but I try to use them as a useful shorthand which I go on to explain, or at least I try to have an honest, specific definition. It's not so much the words themselves, but how they are used which is the problem.

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.