Vague Words are Always an Opportunity for Political Manipulation
Due to important distractions in my life, I have been unable to write for quite some time, but a reply to my article, Being Proud of Your Race Doesn’t Make Sense, by Daniel Berry created the motivation for me to write about something I’ve been wanting to write about for quite some time anyway. Daniel accuses me of cherry-picking definitions, and in his defense, he makes a decent argument for it. Here’s something Daniel said that’s very important; it’s what motivated me to write this:
As with most words, there are multiple definitions, and as with most people, you chose the definition that fit your narrative and confirmation bias. Proud can be meant of an event, achievement, anything that can strike a feeling or sense of pride.
Daniel is absolutely right. I will address Daniel’s comments soon. I’d like to apply this concept to similar, more widespread issues.
There are generally two main reasons that people disagree.
The first is that one person, despite accurately understanding the message the other is trying to convey, still believes that their argument is not an accurate representation of the world. Basically, there’s disagreement but there’s no misunderstanding. I think this first scenario is quite rare, because language, despite being such a useful invention, often works very badly.
I think disagreement is most often found in this second reason: a misunderstanding of meaning in the message the other person is trying to convey.
For example, I say: “public schools should be abolished.”
What the other person hears: “children shouldn’t be properly educated.”
What I actually mean: “For political/economic reasons, I believe the government is an incredibly inefficient and biased machine, and I believe education is much better suited in the private sector, where competition and innovation can produce the greatest teaching methods at the lowest cost.”
Now of course, without any specificity or explanation, the other person is not necessarily wrong for misunderstanding my original statement, but that misunderstanding likely caused that person to think of me as evil. No sane person would actually argue that children should remain ignorant, and it’s highly unlikely that anyone would actually argue for it. But, especially on the internet, it’s impossible to tell the motive. And to make matters worse, look at how much time it took to actually outline what I was trying to say! This is what I mean when I say that language often works very badly. Accurate communication requires patience. And vagueness always hinders cooperation.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.
-H.L. Mencken
This unfortunate phenomenon of communication is often hijacked, either knowingly or unknowingly, by those who wish to manipulate. This is where the concept of political correctness originates. It is a disingenuous attempt to persuade the masses by changing how we say things. Along with being an excellent tool for communication, language is also the general medium in which we think. If you can change the words, you can perhaps change the thoughts. If you can convince many people to stretch the usage of a word, you can effectively change its definition, and influence the minds of many — especially children, whose minds are such sponges for language.
Here is just one example of a word whose definition has been successfully mangled to suit political ends:
Racism:
Original meaning (circa 1950s-late 1990s): prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
Updated definition(circa 2000–2010): the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Both of these definitions come from a quick Google search of racism. Notice the stark differences between these two definitions and their attached implications. The newest definition has been perpetuated by those who, either knowingly or unknowingly, profess cultural Marxism — it is one of the main drivers of identity politics and degrades individualism.
So, by our newest definition, if I point out the fact that there does exist differences between races, even physical differences, I am now a racist, because it can always be argued that any difference is somehow beneficial at something. Despite the fact that the study of forensics depends on physical differences between races — for instance, that those of African descent tend to have denser bones, these facts must be racist by definition, because this could imply that black people may excel in certain kinds of sports.
So to address Daniel Berry’s accusation, that I have cherry picked a definition for the word pride, he is correct. Even though I have picked the standard definition of the word, a high or inordinate opinion of one’s own dignity, importance, merit,or superiority, I have excluded the countless vague connotations of the word that could change the entire meaning of my previous article.
However, I think vagueness is a slow poison on society. As I insinuated earlier, every definition stretched is an opportunity for subtle manipulation.
When you say that you’re proud to be white, proud to be black, proud to be an American, proud to be a woman, it would do you well in the long run to specifically explain what you mean.
Are you using the specific, written, and historical meaning of that word, and creating an inflated sense of importance for yourself because of your inherent features or membership within a group?
Or do you mean, you appreciate being a part of that specific community?
If it’s the latter, I would simply urge you to say the latter. The former is not only a vague misrepresentation of the word pride, it has harmful, long-term implications. If repeated in this same way en masse, it has the potential to slowly transform into a very similar idea: I’m better because I’m white, I’m better because I’m black, I’m better because I’m American, I’m better because I’m a woman.
I’ll end with an important observation of basic human instinct — Mencken always says it best.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
-H.L. Mencken
