This story is unavailable.

The language is esoteric, often mystical, but is of course coined by academics, who give the terms scientific sounding names. The priests of the ideology are expert at instilling their language into your mind because they have the support, generally, of mass media and academia.

If they get you to accept their words they gain a victory over you, in the sense that you have accepted the semantic propositions intrinsic to the words. The question is, if we use the prefix ‘cis-’, is the victory gained over our minds one worth fighting back against?

On the one hand, I think it’s important to note that their terminology is designed with the purpose of giving them additional power. The words are like a Trojan horse meant to embed itself in everybody’s consciousness and propagate normative outcomes (“normative” in this context meaning the replacement of traditional norms with their own agenda-driven ones). If we accept all the terminology they present us with, we may very well run the risk of ceding them too much power over our minds. Once a word becomes widely used, its concept gains legitimacy as a thing in existence. When there is no actual entity or category being referenced in objective reality the use of the word is mere superstition and all deliberation or action is partly meaningless, because we are essentially sacrificing to the god of that concept.

On the other hand, we should probably take into account the fact that the made-up words they use are not simply tools of manipulation for the purpose of controlling us. Most of them believe the concepts they refer to are real, and if you want to understand a religion, it’s very helpful to know the terminology and communicate with the followers of the faith using their terms. When you speak the language of your enemy, rather than waiting for them to speak your own, you become the dominant negotiating party.

The biggest problems come from words that are exactly the same, but defined differently, e.g. the divergent definitions of the word “racism”. This one is especially bad, because it’s new definition postulates a semantic value that renders it nonsensical in most contexts (“only whites can be racist”) it would normally be applied to. In my opinion, this word is a meaningless vestige of language that should be abandoned and will probably die on its own.

But when it comes to the question of whether or not to accept the new coloquial or vehemently reject it, I think the best approach is to use it only in an appropriate rhetorical context, while taking precautions not to start believing in its meaning if that meaning is superstitious. Language evolves, and some words arise out of necessity. Some arise out of Marxist indoctrination. Ultimately the things we say shape us and our understanding, and the mechanics of the lexicon run so deeply into the human psyche we find we have very little control over what it ultimately becomes.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.