Thank you Stephen L. Hall for writing this post even though you were ill. It is greatly appreciated.
***
“What do you read, my lord?”
“Words, words, words.”
“What is the matter, my lord?”
“Between who?”
“I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.”
“Slanders, sir.”
Would that our words were so honest. We inhabit a society where words have become meaningless, and nonsensical, fantastical phrases have replaced any semblance to reasoned discourse. We are familiar with the word liberal used to describe people who despise liberty; progressive used to describe abandoning our progress; and social justice is neither social nor just.
The phrase “civil rights” is foolish because rights are civic, never civil. It is equally foolish because what they call rights, simply are not. The word “tolerance” is used to mean that they are intolerant of anything short of complete acceptance. A now disfavored phrase of “affirmative action” was just another way of saying discrimination with different words.
I had occasion, about a week ago on a website to converse, if one might call it that, with an obvious troll upon the topic of the second amendment. The most telling mark of any troll that I have noticed is that they ask questions thinking they are Socrates to try to catch you in a contradiction, but are unwilling to ever answer a question themselves. The fool pretending that his is wise, but that is no matter.
He was unwilling to look at the actual language of the sentence he was willfully misinterpreting. The grammar is simple. The placement of the comma is essential. The leftist argument fails basic grammar. The phrase regarding a well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state is a contextual phrase, not a modifying phrase. It does not change, alter, or limit in any manner any other word of the sentence.
It becomes difficult, if not outright impossible, to discuss any issue with someone who fails to understand and comprehend basic English. To actually be able to discuss ideas and converse intelligently is the very purpose for the construction of language. Why bother with talking at all to anyone if you fail to understand the rudiments of the language of the conversation itself. I am not alone in this opinion.
“Si non vis intelligi, debes negligi. If you do not wish to be understood, you should be discounted.” – John Locke. Locke cautioned us to speak plainly and to make certain that when discussing any issue you must take the time to articulate common definitions and meaning of words. This is why the butchery of the English language by the leftists is so disturbing because they have managed to divide people through linguistic ignorance and convince some that they are champions of exactly the opposite of what they actually support.
Having once recited that Latin phrase to a coworker, she said in frustration that I should speak English. So I told her, “Eschew obfuscation.” She said, “I said speak English.” To which I responded, “That was English.”
On a previous occasion when I was sitting upon my porch first reading the book from which that quote is taken, a friend called me upon the telephone. She asked me what I was doing, so I told her I was reading a book. She asked what book, so I informed her that it was John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. She asked what it was about. After a pause, I responded, “It’s about human understanding. It’s an essay.” So much for not being able to judge a book by its cover.
All of which is merely a prelude to certain more recent abuses of the language which I really wanted to write about in this post. In particular, the prominent and ubiquitous employment of the modern phrases: “hate crime” & “hate speech”. “That’s an ill phrase, a vile phrase.” – Polonius.
The word “hate” can be a noun, or it can be a verb. It cannot be an adjective. The absolute meaningless stupidity of throwing random words together as if they have meaning sends a clear signal that the person using such a vile phrase has no intention of talking or communicating any idea or coherent thought.
Such meaningless phrases are emotional ploys designed in such a way that they convey only confusion. Hatred, we are constantly told, is bad. Why? Is it, in fact, wrong to hate that which is evil? You should not judge, we are told as these same people misquote the Bible. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, they say as they misquote Thomas Hobbes. Emotional appeals are intended to halt debate, halt discussion, label anyone who disagrees with them as a bad person.
“Hate speech” we are told is not acceptable. “Hate speech” is not protected speech under the Constitution. “Hate speech” cannot even exist, there can be no such thing. No one can actually discuss the merits of something which does not exist. No one can discuss anything if they do not agree on the basic definitions of words themselves.
But that is the common ploy of the left, to invent non-sense phrases then people don’t understand what they are saying, because they really are not saying anything. Often in pseudo-intellectual circles, they will hide the non-sense in complex and convoluted sentences with really big and often invented words. They then mock the people who admit that they do not understand the phrase as uneducated and stupid.
John Locke pointed out that people are loath to admit that they do not understand what someone else is saying for fear of being thought unintelligent. It is actually one of people’s biggest fears. The more credentialed the non-sense speaker, the more convoluted the non-sense, and the more credentialed the listener, the less likely the listener will admit to their own ignorance publicly. The weak-minded Ph.D. will pretend that he really understood the non-sense just to save his own reputation.
John Locke outlined the rise and the techniques of the “pseudo-intellectual” a hundred years before the preeminent pseudo-intellectual, Immanuel Kant, built his reputation doing exactly what John Locke warned people about. Academia has since been increasingly infested and overwhelmed by the pseudo-intellectual.
It was from Kant that Karl Marx learned the art of speaking non-sense in long, convoluted, sentences with big and even invented words. Socialist theory is built upon the idiocy of using words with vague, ambiguous, or even non-existent meaning.
But back to the topic at hand, the modern political manifestation of the non-sense phrase or meaningless word. The current invention is that votes, jobs, or culture can be stolen. “Will be spending the day campaigning in Connecticut, another state where jobs are being stolen by other countries. I will stop this fast!” – Donald Trump. h/t Tiff.
You cannot steal that which someone does not own, by definition. Stealing, larceny, requires the carrying away with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the thing stolen. A person cannot actually own a culture or a job or a vote. They cannot be stolen. Anyone, such as Trump or his followers, who utters such a stupid phrase is little better than an idiot.
If I adopt another person’s culture, are they permanently deprived thereof? Have I taken anything from them? If an employer moves his factory overseas, he has not stolen the job of Americans, because the employee does not own the job. These are not tangible things which can be owned, and to speak of them as if they were is madness.
I do not tolerate such stupidity.
There is another vile word I detest is the word “fair”. Strictly speaking that is not true, it is more an overused ubiquitous but meaningless word. I could do an entire post merely on the abuse of the word “fair” in political discourse.
Lest any reader suspect that I view their personal faux pas of language askance, please understand that I do not refer to the omission of the occasional verb (although that is a personal pet peeve of mine) or even repeated grammatical errors. My objection is not the accidental or erroneous misuse of language, but the systemic and intentional abuse of language to manipulate and deceive the weak minded. “The force can have a powerful influence upon the weak minded.” – Obi Wan Kenobi.
Why is language, and the abuse thereof, so important, particularly in political and legal discourse? Because language deeply affects the way people think and even the ideas they are able to express. The very concept of the Whorfian hypothesis is based upon the idea that it is difficult for people to even think in terms that their language is not equipped to express. Muddled thinking comes from muddled language.
If you ever wondered why you can’t seem to get through to certain leftists basic concepts of civics, rights, economics, or politics, it may just be the result that they have never learned the structure of the words and sentences that you are trying to use to inform them.
From my perspective, the mere utterance of a non-sense phrase is an immediate disqualification of any actual attempt at communication and brands the speaker as an idiot unworthy of my time and energy. One of those Alinsky tactics talks about using humour to discount and dismiss one’s political opponents. I find that my response tends to the following: “There is no such thing as the phrase you just uttered. You are a complete idiot. Have a nice day.”
I have no more words:
