War of the Words (part 2)

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - Juliet Capulet.

I stated in part 1 that the left works hard to control the meanings of words, or at least the words that can be used in a discussion, and I should provide examples to back up my claim. Here are a few:

The debate over abortion is an obvious example. A lot of the dialog in this area is about terminology and even images. Just think of the names that the sides give to themselves. Instead of being pro-abortion or anti-abortion (which would have been the most straightforward and technically correct), the left started framing the issue as "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", which really skirts the issue being debated. I mean, there are a whole series of choices involved, including whether or not to have sex, whether or not to do it in the context of marriage, whether or not to use birth control over the long term, whether or not to use protection, etc., that come long before the choice that they want to be able to make. Certainly anti-abortion people can point out that once a person has made a whole series of choices that have a really likely outcome, they should abide by the expected results of their choices.

Now, I am not planning on making this blog about abortion arguments, so I won't pursue this line of thought further - I just want to point out how misleading the term "pro-choice" is in this context, and that what it really seems to mean is "no consequences for choices, ever". Actually, almost uniquely in the case of the abortion issue the right side has managed to see this tactic and fight back - not to victory but at least to a truce - by the use of their own self-identification as being "pro-life". The left fought this with extreme vigor for years but they managed to get it to stick, and the pro-abortion people finally had to accept the name. In this case maybe there is a germ of an idea of how to fight back on this tactic so it is interesting for that reason. Of course, the names of the sides is only one area where this battle of images and words is fought. Since this is such a visceral issue for the left, they have been attacking on multiple fronts. For instance, the insistence on using terms like "tissue" rather than "fetus", "embryo" or "baby". When they lose this battle, they lose the argument with all but the most hardened abortion activists. Finally, there is the use of images (worth 1000 words?). Why even use words when a picture of a coat hanger conjures up horrific images of blood-filled bathtubs and promising lives ended by an unwanted parasite? The pro-life side has responded in kind. Now while I personally don't really like the tactic of showing horrific pictures of aborted babies, I believe that the pro-abortion side really asks for this response with its own image tactics.

Besides "pro-choice" there are a plethora of words that have been, through sheer repetition, made into "power words" that now have a life of their own and can be thrown into any argument like an atom bomb, producing a huge crater and a bright flash that will end the conversation and immobilize their opponents. For instance,

• Hate: This one is used to silence anybody you disagree with, who has any scruples at all. Since your moral beliefs are just motivated by "hate", just shut up! You don't even have a right to talk! This is easily seen in the current "gay marriage" debate. Never mind that the definition of marriage has been consistent for many thousands of years up until just a couple of years ago, you obviously only want to keep it that way because "you hate gay people".


• -phobia (or fear): For instance - "homophobic", which is thrown out at those who think that homosexual behavior is wrong or bad for society, or that it might be a choice. This is a very effective tool, because it allows a moral counter-attack. What is the issue on homosexuality? Whether it is immoral or not. Since the accusation is a moral one, the best way to respond is to respond in kind. Outside of a church, however, accusing someone of being a Pharisee or legalist would only confuse people, but if you accuse someone of being cowardly or hateful you assume the moral high ground and the other side is suddenly fighting uphill when they least expected it.

• Diversity: What a misused term! The left uses the word "diversity" to mean "you must throw away all of your beliefs to include all of the most demonstrably intolerant people in the world on their own terms". How must more contradictory could this be?? Just think of all the staunch feminists who want every trace of "intolerant Christianity" to be wiped out of society, but are instead instead advocating that we need to accept, for diversity's sake, those who wish to impose sharia law. Ohhhhh-kaaaayyyyyy...

• Racist: In the old days this term was used to describe those who hated people who were different than themselves, especially based on skin color. Now, it has been redefined to mean "any white person who is against liberalism". Sometimes the person does not even have to be white. Other than it being opposed to liberalism there does not seem to be any other consideration any more. If a black panther group stands outside a polling place holding a bat and threatening white people who are trying to vote is not racist, a man yelling on a street corner that "I hate white people ... you've got to kill their babies!" is not racist, an organization named "the race" (La Rasa) with the slogan "for the race, all; for others, nothing" who want a "brown continent" are not racist - THEN WHAT IS RACIST? Oh, they answer, racism is about power. Okay, then can a black be racist in South Africa where they now have control of the government and are in the majority?

Finally, there is controlling the narrative through use of repeated words and phrases. One galling example is the Prop 8 debate here in California. The leftist narrative here shows in every news story where they talk about how the law "to ban gay marriage" is being considered. It also shows every time they interview someone and they talk about how people have suddenly sprung up that have taken away equal rights (for the first time in America!!!) by denying the equal right to get married. The first and second example are related - they involve flipping the positive and negative using terminology. Prop 8 was not a proposal to ban something that had existed since the dawn of time. It was a correction of a lawless act of a few public officials who broke their oaths to uphold the laws and the meanings of those laws that had stood for over 200 years of American history.

It was only a few years ago that one official in the bay area started doing "gay marriages" on his own authority. A law was passed to define marriage more exactly (something never before thought necessary - sort of like defining "light" or something), was struck down by a court which then refused to stay on the result of prop 8 (creating a problem but not a legal precedent). When prop 8 passed it was no more a "banning of gay marriage" than it was a law banning calling eating pizza marriage. But listen to any news report and see if they use any other term than banning, and you will see how strong that this tactic is when they manage to insert new word meanings into the cultural lexicon. As far as equal rights, everyone has the right to marry. That is not the issue and they know it. The issue is whether they have the right to call anything marriage. Any commitment = marriage? Why not pets? Why not fifteen people? Why not those 15-minute marriages that make prostitution okay in many muslim countries? If "equal rights" means the right to define any term to mean anything you want and then obey the law only if your definition agrees with the law, how can *any* law stand? It can't, of course, but as long as "hate", "equal rights", "phobia" and "banning gay marriage" are the language that define the debate, the debate is really over before it starts.

The final question to ask is, is this deliberate dishonesty, muddy thinking or the new glorious age ushered in by post-modernistic freedom from "rigid thinking" and "dogmatic definitions"? I think it is a combination of the first two. Master manipulators achieve goals through this tactic and many of the manipulated masses let it happen because it is (a) easier than trying to pierce through the clouds of obfuscation and (b) the connotative value of the key words and phrases are very powerful on the emotional side. One more thought needs to be added to this discussion - the sabotaging your opponents' key words to disable them before the fight.

(stay tuned for part 3)