What do these three terms have in common?
All of their meanings have been altered rather drastically, but this has been done recently enough that the words still carry the emotional impact of the older definitions.
Have the definitions been changed with conscious intent by someone, or did it happen organically?
In the case of "anti-vaxxer," we know that at some point during the current pandemic, Merriam-Webster literally changed its dictionary definition to denote anyone who is against any sort of vaccine mandate. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, the term "anti-vaxxer" had been understood much more broadly to refer to someone who opposes vaccination to some degree. The "anti-vaxxer" label was applied with a mildly pejorative connotation from the start, intended to paint members of this movement with a broad brush as stubborn, ignorant absolutists and to downplay any nuance in their actual views. However, the term has picked up an even nastier connotation over the 20 years or so it has been kicking around in rancorous debates. The term "anti-vaxxer," which on its face sounds acceptably neutral and at least somewhat accurate, had successfully been transformed, over the course of a couple of decades, into a powerful derogatory slur by the time COVID-19 came along. The result of the recent definitional adjustment seems clear, as does its deliberate intent. I'll spell it out even though it's self-evident: the purpose is to make it socially painful, humiliating, and reputation-damaging to oppose COVID-19 vaccine mandates: a draconian and unprecedented means of coercing people to be injected with an experimental substance, both against their will and without sufficient knowledge of its inherent risks, in contravention of the Nuremburg Code.
The term "white supremacist" has also undergone a startling transformation of meaning, also with a pretty obvious breadcrumb trail indicating that this happened not organically, as language does sometimes shift, but with calculated intent. I know what the term "white supremacist" means to me, and has meant in consensus reality not only for the entire duration of my life (pre-COVID) but even many decades prior: it's a person who believes that the white or Aryan race is superior to all other races, as can be easily intuited from the words themselves. It's the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Neo-Nazis, the Skinheads. It's people who are overtly racist and proud of it, and usually tend strongly toward violence and other criminal activity. The emotional impact of this original definition is still totally potent and resonant when the term is deployed today, as if it still means that. Actually, it does still mean that, because the term "white supremacist" has to do double-duty: it's still the only way you can reasonably refer to the groups indicated in the original definition, but it now must also encompass a broad swathe of others. So broad, in fact, that in one way it has no meaning at all because there is no limit to how it can be used or where it can be applied. In a bewildering new world where it's racist merely to be born white and all forms of racism are equally morally wrong, the exact current definition is squirrely, and seems to have been left murky on purpose. But it's not hard to tease it out with a little observation; the context of its use in public "discourse" is actually quite consistent. When someone is accused of being a "white supremacist" (and that person does not fit the bill with regard to the older, original meaning), it always seems to mean: A person who, if thought credible by large numbers of people and allowed a platform, might weaken the power of the person flinging the epithet and whatever interests they would like to forward. And the exact same definition applies to "anti-vaxxer," "far-right winger," and "conspiracy theorist."
"White supremacist" in particular is a term that has held a special place, in that its emotional resonance translates to "The worst thing you can possibly be." Other than pedophile or mass murderer, there doesn't seem to be much around that packs the same whollop as white supremacist, and deservedly so. At least, there didn't used to be. Now, in bizarro COVID world, "far-right-winger," "anti-vaxxer," and "white supremacist" seem to have a roughly equivalent "evil quotient" in terms of damage points when cast. Once conjuring up terrifying associations with white robes, masked lynch mobs, burning crosses, and brutal beatings and hangings, the designation of "white supremacist" is now used unashamedly and unironically to describe Tucker Carlson. That's Tucker Carlson: a fairly nice fella on the conservative side who seems to like bowties and gazing into the camera with an expression of consternation. What will be the eventual impact of watering down the meaning of white supremacist? Will it eventually stop carrying the potent reminder of a past we never want to repeat? More to the point, has it already?
"Far-right winger" is a term dropped so exorbitantly that I wince every time I hear it. Has anyone else noticed that the "right wing" (regular-style, without the far) seems to have ceased to exist? I can't remember the last time I've seen any mention of it in the corporate press. It feels like it's been years and years. The far-right, on the other hand...wow, have those guys been busy. But who are they? Until the COVID-19 pandemic, I was certain that I had never even met an actual far-right winger in real life. They sound like exceedingly unpleasant characters with whom I would definitely prefer not to cross paths. Wikipedia has a definition of "far-right extremism" that I feel comfortable agreeing with, as it falls in line with what I've understood it to be for most of my life:
Before I close out my list, I can't forget to add one more: "conspiracy theorist." Wow, has ever a society been inundated with such a concentration of whack-job conspiracy theorists as our society today? Well, to be clear, I am asking that with sarcasm, because I have seen the term used and abused until it, too, holds no meaning, as with the other terms discussed. I'm well aware that there really is an extraordinary number of conspiracy theories floating around (and a few of them aren't even true!). But "conspiracy theory" is just another pejorative, an ad hominem attack, used to discredit an opponent - even if that opponent is as down-to-earth as they come, meticulously well-researched, and bull's-eye accurate.
Now, you youngsters won't remember this, but I seem to sort of recall a time when people were judicious about their use of libelous attack, out of fear of being sued, sure, but mainly out of fear of losing credibility. In the world of today, all the media that people take in passively - the corporate, legacy media (sometimes still known as "mainstream," though that is falling away) is in lock-step. None of them call any of the others out on their bullshit because they are all of a piece. They are one. They are...legion. People who are not finely attuned to the fact that they are being held captive in a propaganda wind tunnel are sitting ducks.
Conspiracy theorist, far-right winger, anti-vaxxer, white supremacist...these words are nuclear. They are relationship-destroying, career-destroying, heavy artillery. And they need to be, because they serve a purpose when appropriately applied. But you've got to call a spade a spade. In colonial Massachusetts in 1692-93, words like witch, demon, devil, warlock, succubus got innocent people tortured and killed. During the Inquisition, words like heretic and heathen got innocent people tortured and killed. During the McCarthy years, words like Communist got innocent people tortured and killed. During the Holocaust... Well, we could go down the list, right? Jew, kike, fag, nigger, cripple, idiot, mongoloid...these words are worse than knives. Ugliness doesn't begin to say it. Atrocious words lead to atrocities. The literal meaning of the word doesn't matter, nor does it matter what it sounds like or how it's spelled. What matters is, how much hate can it hold? And for how many people does the hatred associated with that word hold sway? Hitler was an actual white supremacist. He was full of hate, and he committed atrocities. Therefore we hate white supremacists. And we feel quite justified in doing so. So when you lie to the masses of people out there, and call someone a white supremacist who is not one - when you take a normal, innocent person and try to weaponize society against them through large-scale deceit...you know what it means. You know it means you've become the very thing you purport to be against. You know it, and you know we know it. We understand each other perfectly well.
It's the spectators who need to decide who they're going to believe, and what they're going to do about it.
All of their meanings have been altered rather drastically, but this has been done recently enough that the words still carry the emotional impact of the older definitions.
Have the definitions been changed with conscious intent by someone, or did it happen organically?
In the case of "anti-vaxxer," we know that at some point during the current pandemic, Merriam-Webster literally changed its dictionary definition to denote anyone who is against any sort of vaccine mandate. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, the term "anti-vaxxer" had been understood much more broadly to refer to someone who opposes vaccination to some degree. The "anti-vaxxer" label was applied with a mildly pejorative connotation from the start, intended to paint members of this movement with a broad brush as stubborn, ignorant absolutists and to downplay any nuance in their actual views. However, the term has picked up an even nastier connotation over the 20 years or so it has been kicking around in rancorous debates. The term "anti-vaxxer," which on its face sounds acceptably neutral and at least somewhat accurate, had successfully been transformed, over the course of a couple of decades, into a powerful derogatory slur by the time COVID-19 came along. The result of the recent definitional adjustment seems clear, as does its deliberate intent. I'll spell it out even though it's self-evident: the purpose is to make it socially painful, humiliating, and reputation-damaging to oppose COVID-19 vaccine mandates: a draconian and unprecedented means of coercing people to be injected with an experimental substance, both against their will and without sufficient knowledge of its inherent risks, in contravention of the Nuremburg Code.
The term "white supremacist" has also undergone a startling transformation of meaning, also with a pretty obvious breadcrumb trail indicating that this happened not organically, as language does sometimes shift, but with calculated intent. I know what the term "white supremacist" means to me, and has meant in consensus reality not only for the entire duration of my life (pre-COVID) but even many decades prior: it's a person who believes that the white or Aryan race is superior to all other races, as can be easily intuited from the words themselves. It's the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Neo-Nazis, the Skinheads. It's people who are overtly racist and proud of it, and usually tend strongly toward violence and other criminal activity. The emotional impact of this original definition is still totally potent and resonant when the term is deployed today, as if it still means that. Actually, it does still mean that, because the term "white supremacist" has to do double-duty: it's still the only way you can reasonably refer to the groups indicated in the original definition, but it now must also encompass a broad swathe of others. So broad, in fact, that in one way it has no meaning at all because there is no limit to how it can be used or where it can be applied. In a bewildering new world where it's racist merely to be born white and all forms of racism are equally morally wrong, the exact current definition is squirrely, and seems to have been left murky on purpose. But it's not hard to tease it out with a little observation; the context of its use in public "discourse" is actually quite consistent. When someone is accused of being a "white supremacist" (and that person does not fit the bill with regard to the older, original meaning), it always seems to mean: A person who, if thought credible by large numbers of people and allowed a platform, might weaken the power of the person flinging the epithet and whatever interests they would like to forward. And the exact same definition applies to "anti-vaxxer," "far-right winger," and "conspiracy theorist."
"White supremacist" in particular is a term that has held a special place, in that its emotional resonance translates to "The worst thing you can possibly be." Other than pedophile or mass murderer, there doesn't seem to be much around that packs the same whollop as white supremacist, and deservedly so. At least, there didn't used to be. Now, in bizarro COVID world, "far-right-winger," "anti-vaxxer," and "white supremacist" seem to have a roughly equivalent "evil quotient" in terms of damage points when cast. Once conjuring up terrifying associations with white robes, masked lynch mobs, burning crosses, and brutal beatings and hangings, the designation of "white supremacist" is now used unashamedly and unironically to describe Tucker Carlson. That's Tucker Carlson: a fairly nice fella on the conservative side who seems to like bowties and gazing into the camera with an expression of consternation. What will be the eventual impact of watering down the meaning of white supremacist? Will it eventually stop carrying the potent reminder of a past we never want to repeat? More to the point, has it already?
"Far-right winger" is a term dropped so exorbitantly that I wince every time I hear it. Has anyone else noticed that the "right wing" (regular-style, without the far) seems to have ceased to exist? I can't remember the last time I've seen any mention of it in the corporate press. It feels like it's been years and years. The far-right, on the other hand...wow, have those guys been busy. But who are they? Until the COVID-19 pandemic, I was certain that I had never even met an actual far-right winger in real life. They sound like exceedingly unpleasant characters with whom I would definitely prefer not to cross paths. Wikipedia has a definition of "far-right extremism" that I feel comfortable agreeing with, as it falls in line with what I've understood it to be for most of my life:
Historically used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism, today far-right politics include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.Who's "far-right" now? Joe Rogan? The MSM has dubbed the successful podcaster a "far-right influencer." Joe Rogan has always self-identified as politically leftist, and still does. That doesn't seem to matter a scintilla, though.
Before I close out my list, I can't forget to add one more: "conspiracy theorist." Wow, has ever a society been inundated with such a concentration of whack-job conspiracy theorists as our society today? Well, to be clear, I am asking that with sarcasm, because I have seen the term used and abused until it, too, holds no meaning, as with the other terms discussed. I'm well aware that there really is an extraordinary number of conspiracy theories floating around (and a few of them aren't even true!). But "conspiracy theory" is just another pejorative, an ad hominem attack, used to discredit an opponent - even if that opponent is as down-to-earth as they come, meticulously well-researched, and bull's-eye accurate.
Now, you youngsters won't remember this, but I seem to sort of recall a time when people were judicious about their use of libelous attack, out of fear of being sued, sure, but mainly out of fear of losing credibility. In the world of today, all the media that people take in passively - the corporate, legacy media (sometimes still known as "mainstream," though that is falling away) is in lock-step. None of them call any of the others out on their bullshit because they are all of a piece. They are one. They are...legion. People who are not finely attuned to the fact that they are being held captive in a propaganda wind tunnel are sitting ducks.
Conspiracy theorist, far-right winger, anti-vaxxer, white supremacist...these words are nuclear. They are relationship-destroying, career-destroying, heavy artillery. And they need to be, because they serve a purpose when appropriately applied. But you've got to call a spade a spade. In colonial Massachusetts in 1692-93, words like witch, demon, devil, warlock, succubus got innocent people tortured and killed. During the Inquisition, words like heretic and heathen got innocent people tortured and killed. During the McCarthy years, words like Communist got innocent people tortured and killed. During the Holocaust... Well, we could go down the list, right? Jew, kike, fag, nigger, cripple, idiot, mongoloid...these words are worse than knives. Ugliness doesn't begin to say it. Atrocious words lead to atrocities. The literal meaning of the word doesn't matter, nor does it matter what it sounds like or how it's spelled. What matters is, how much hate can it hold? And for how many people does the hatred associated with that word hold sway? Hitler was an actual white supremacist. He was full of hate, and he committed atrocities. Therefore we hate white supremacists. And we feel quite justified in doing so. So when you lie to the masses of people out there, and call someone a white supremacist who is not one - when you take a normal, innocent person and try to weaponize society against them through large-scale deceit...you know what it means. You know it means you've become the very thing you purport to be against. You know it, and you know we know it. We understand each other perfectly well.
It's the spectators who need to decide who they're going to believe, and what they're going to do about it.
Comments
Post a Comment