The Rectification of Terms

 

This video is a capsule example of how the left is trying to shut down civil discourse: they will not listen to opinions, arguments, or facts they do not want to hear. This is because they no longer accept the possibility of truth itself. Instead, they reserve the right to construct a “narrative,” and to use any and all means to silence anything that goes against it.

But the most insidious thing demonstrated here, is demanding that speakers use only their preferred terminology. They must say “equity,” and may not use the term “critical race theory.” This is what Orwell warned against as “Newspeak”: an attempt to control thought through restricting language.

How important is this? Confucius, asked what was the first task of government, answered “the rectification of terms.” The meaning of words must not be tempered with, or everything in society falls apart; honest communication is no longer possible. Honest interpersonal relationships of any kind are no longer possible.

In that spirit, here are some grossly dishonest terms currently in common use. I propose a parallel to “Godwin’s Law” here; or rather, to the misinterpretation of Godwin’s Law common on the internet. Godwin stated that any Internet discussion, if it went on long enough, would end in a Hitler analogy. The false version, which I refer to here, is that the first person who uses a Hitler analogy loses the debate.

My proposal is similar to this latter: If anyone uses one of these terms in debate, they ought to be declared to have lost the debate. They are not debating in good faith.

“My truth”

Use of this phrase implies that truth is different for different people. If this premise is accepted, there are no grounds on which to discuss anything. From this point on, it is just might makes right.

“My community”

Unless this means the people living in your neighbourhood, this is always a discriminatory term. You are saying anyone who does not look like you, or think like you, is no concern of yours. It is a mental redlining. Compare Jesus’s parable of the good Samaritan.

“Gender”

“Gender” is correct as a grammatical term: nouns and adjectives have gender. Any other usage confuses things terribly. The current usage to mean “having a male character or personality” or “having a female personality” was invented in 1945: “The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex.” (OED) Why was such a term not needed before this time? Because it expresses a theory, that the state of femaleness or maleness is independent of sex. Nobody thought so before 1945; demonstrably, that is debatable. Casual use of the term as if the existence of what it refers to has been established is an attempt to avoid such a debate. 

“Islamophobia”

“Phobia” means fear, and irrational fear. Use of the term implies that anyone who disagrees with Islam does so out of fear, and is irrational. But Islam is itself a set of rational assertions. The attempt to suppress discussion could not be clearer.

“Homophobia”

This is almost as bad “Homophobia” makes no more sense than “pedophilophobia” for those who oppose pedophilia, or “kleptophobia” for those who oppose theft. Homosexuality is a behavior. This is an attempt to suppress discussion of whether that behavior is immoral. The case must be made, not avoided.

“Lived experience”

All experience is lived. The first thing you can say about anyone who uses this phrase, therefore, is that they are not very smart. But because nobody s privy to another’s experience, this is a refusal to discuss the matter. You are simply being asked to take their word for it. This is not reasonable; it is a con.

“Judgmental”

A blood-red flag if used as a criticism. This is an assertion of the right to do any wrong. Judgement is the moral faculty.

“Aboriginal“; “Indigenous”

Wrong when used to refer to groups of people. Reasonable in the case of vegetation. So far as we can tell, no group of people is aboriginal to the place in which they currently reside. It is almost impossible that any are. Using the term is not just scientifically and historically false. It sets up an artificial division among people, almost certainly in order to assign different rights. Our doctrine of human equality is based expressly on the Biblical concept that we are all brothers, all descendants of one original creation. “When Adam delved, and Eve span/Who then was the gentleman?” Deny that, and we lose all human rights and all human dignity.

“Race”

The concept of race is not meaningless, but it is usually worse than useless. Is it ever legitimate to discriminate among individuals on the basis of race? Perhaps when considering the odds of some genetic disease. 

But our current usage is nonsensical. Mary Simon is heralded as Canada’s first Inuit Governor-General. Yet her father was English. Barack Obama is heralded as the US’s first black or African-American president. Yet his mother was European. Kamala Harris is declared the first African-American vice-president. Yet her mother was Indian. Is Tiger Woods black, or Thai? Is Muhammed Ali black, or Irish? Most of us, in the Americas, are of mixed race; it becomes arbitrary to assign us to this or that race. And to what purpose, other than to discriminate?

“Gay”

The term is meant to enforce the view that homosexuals are or should be happy about their sexual preference. This is debatable; there are perfectly practical reasons why they might not be. It is dong no favour to homosexuals, in particular, to suppress that debate.

It also robs the language of a useful word. “Gay” can no longer be used in its original meaning without distracting double entendre.

“Exceptional”

This term is deliberately misleading when used to refer to people with mental deficiencies. And resorting to euphemisms for stupid is like a dog chasing its own tail. The new term soon accrues all the stigma of the old. The only thing that is accomplished is the wrecking of another vocabulary item.

“Mental illness”

Whatever the experiences we call “mental illness” are, they are not an “illness.” That is at best a metaphor or analogy. Declaring them so is an ad hominem attack; it serves to discount the views of anyone so labelled without consideration. A perfect way to strip anyone of their rights. Witness Britney Spears.

Readers may have their own suggestions to add. I’d be delighted to see any in the comments.