The Political Sabotage and Weaponization of the English Language
Recently, Prager University posted a video to the Internet titled “ LA Slut Walk Exposed.” In the 2 minute and 55 second segment, various people attending the acclaimed “slut walk” were asked to provide their definition of the word slut.
The answers, to say the least, were rather appalling. One woman replied, “Embracing my body, loving myself, and not giving a f — what anyone else thinks about me.” Later, another man answered the same question by defining it as “a person trying to find their self.”
Such answers were later solidified by follow up questions such as: “Being a slut is like a good thing now?” .. To which one woman summarily replied: “That is what we’re here for. The way that black people took the N word, and we made it our word, made it a great word. It’s the same thing for slut.” She later stated, “We made it fun. We made it cool. We made it our word.”
Now, to most people it should be glaringly obvious that the definitions these people provided for the word slut are distinctly different than what people have historically recognized it as. In fact, a brief look at the definition inside of practically any dictionary out there quickly verifies the fact that their definition of the word and the dictionary’s definition are very different.
Merriam Webster: “ disparaging + offensive: a promiscuous woman : a woman who has many sexual partners”
Cambridge Dictionary: “ slang disapproving: a woman who has sexual relationships with a lot of men without any emotional involvement”
Why is this a problem?
Because the primary mechanism used between people to communicate with each other and establish a shared understanding of certain ideas is language.
In order for people to effectively communicate their opinions and ideas, they need to have a common understanding of what each word in their argument means. Without mutual consensus upon the basic definition of a relevant word or label, it becomes almost impossible to reach an agreement about the subject at hand.
The meaning of certain words in the English language form the foundation for how we perceive people. The term “racist” has a definition that makes it a justifiably negative label, and thus people typically have a very negative opinion of individuals who fall underneath that category.
The same animosity that society holds for acclaimed racists is often extended to a number of other equally reprehensible titles; and these titles are ones that most of us are all too familiar with:
“Racist. Nazi. White supremacist. Bigot. Homophobe. Extremist. Far-Right. Hate Speech. Fascist.” And far more.
But the problem is this:
The negative opinions we have of people who fall underneath a certain, derogatory label aren't always limited strictly to valid categorizations. If you've never met someone in person, and you've never seen uncut footage of them speaking, odds are you have a very limited window into what kind of a person they actually are. This severely restricts how accurately you can assess them as an individual, and it leaves you vulnerable to both indoctrination and the blatant, malicious manipulation of your opinion.
For many people in modern society, our only exposure to certain individuals in politics is legacy media coverage, or anonymous, unsourced articles on the Internet. This becomes particularly dangerous when a large quantity of media outlets are either owned or funded by the same organizations and people. This results in the unabashed and reckless slander of anyone who they consider to be their political adversary.
If you've yet to meet a person, hear their words, or see their behavior without the muddy filter of manipulative video editing, cherry-picking, and ideological echo chambers: Your initial exposure to a named civilian or political figure will in all likelihood be the mere accusatory hit-pieces of people who hold disdain for them. And if you just so happen to have unfailing trust in that source’s assessment of their identity, then they control your perspective of that person, unless you choose to branch out.
How Language is Weaponized
In all our history, it’s difficult to believe that there was ever a time in which the aforementioned terms were more misused. Modern society has practically changed the contextual meaning of every horrific title imaginable, and a substantial majority of the ones utilized in today’s political environment can alternatively be defined as:
“Someone I disagree with.”
Disagreeing with someone’s opinion in 2018 can subject you to being accused of any number of atrocities. It can make you a racist, a Nazi, a bigot, a homophobe, a child-killer, a sexist, rapist, misogynist, and a wide array of other, equally abhorred labels. At least according to their modern day political “definitions”.
Non-surprisingly, as exemplified in the original comparison to the skewed definitions of the word slut utilized in LA’s “slut walk”, the vast majority of slanderous titles used to defame and discredit certain individuals in our political environment are used in contexts that in no way reflect their actual definitions.
Rather than being used to identify actual Nazis, and actual racists, these labels are used as substitutions for a legitimate counter-argument.
How This Has Affected Society
If a truth is inconvenient to someone’s current life perspective, and if they lack an argument that can adequately disprove that seemingly life-shattering inconvenience, many people simply resort to going on the offensive.
Dramatic bouts of uncivilized screaming, name-calling, reckless fits of rage, and the rapid application of slander directed at people with different opinions are commonplace in 2018. As unfortunate as it is, far too many people buy into the slander brought on by people who react in this way.
It’s not uncommon to witness people whom are so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that ‘x’ individual is the modern-day equivalent of Hitler himself, that when asked what this person has done to make them comparable, they often can’t cite so much as a single incident that would lend credence to their negative opinion of them.
In many cases, the basis for their adamant hatred of their supposed enemy isn't founded on anything more concrete than an accusation; often times an accusation that wasn't even their own to begin with.
Multiply the affected individual by a few thousand, similarly misguided people, and suddenly you have a movement. The basis for a protest, the basis for a riot, and the basis for terribly extreme hysteria, and widespread development of hatred for people whom they’ve likely never listened to for more than 60 seconds.
That is the malevolent power of misused language, and that is the sort of cycle that is plaguing our current society, and dividing people all across the world.
Mitigating the Problem
It is critical that people investigate for themselves; seek out unfiltered footage of a person’s content, and hear directly from the source of the accused. Context matters, and when context is stripped away, so is any semblance of understanding or meaning in a person’s words.
The destruction of such context directly inhibits our ability to discern the validity of an accusation, and thus: The labels slapped onto the accused are rarely, if ever, weighed against the truth of their character, and the actual definition of that label.
It is absolutely vital that we hold a necessary amount of skepticism in modern day politics when someone is accused of being something reprehensible. The driving point behind this idea is simple:
(Many) people are dishonest.
In light of that scarcely disputed fact about humanity: It’s only logical that when we see someone accusing their ideological adversary of being something abominable, we question not only their motive for doing so, but also the validity of their accusation.
It’s innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
