Of course the practice of redefining words to “deceive, inveigle and obfuscate” is nothing new, but I like to point to this classic:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
The ex-post-facto redefinition of a term for political ass-covering is not new. I seem to remember the Obama administration redefining the calculation for the unemployment rate when things were looking particularly bleak.
I'm sure it's been happening for as long as we've had politics, but it certainly is becoming more noticeable these days.
Seems to me that the essence of "let's play a word game instead" is the word (sorry) "instead". Isn't the person proposing "instead" implicitly acknowledging he or she lacks confidence in the ability to persuade others that he or she has a serious policy proposal to address the problem at hand?
Random thoughts that might or might not fit in with what you're saying:
1. The GOP used to be a lot better at this game. Remember "death panels" and "death taxes"? They were redefinitions of "end-of-life care provision" and "estate taxes" that were highly effective, even though the former was probably completely out of line. They poisoned the "liberal" well too; "progressive" seems to be more popular these days. Arguably "election integrity" is a modern-day incarnation, though maybe that's more of a motte-and-bailey thing.
2. I actually like some redefinitions I've seen: "car crash" instead of "car accident", "enslaved people" instead of "slaves". For all of the problems you've detailed, there's a benefit in being able to better articulate things and use rhetorical framing to advance your side of the argument. I *think* "gun safety" can go into this bucket: If you really believe that you need gun control and you need to persuade, and the thing keeping people from persuading is the "control" part, then...yeah, you'd want to come up with a better way to make your case!
3. I read an article once that talked about how some people do this stuff because they're otherwise powerless. My takeaway was that people who control the discourse can't change policy, but they can tweet about it and change style guides, which can have a trickle-down effect.
4. Matt Yglesias wrote a piece that's in the same universe as yours: https://www.slowboring.com/p/words-arent-magic - basically just saying that while messaging is important, it can't be a substitute for good policy.
I guess if I have a point, it's that this stuff isn't inherently bad, but like all things that are inherently bad, it can be weaponized. So I think you're doing the right thing: getting people to see what it is so we don't get hoodwinked by it at least, and at most we can push back on it or reject it outright.
I was having a conversation with a colleague who insisted that every advantage that anyone is dealt in the random shuffling of life circumstances is privilege. I took issue with the framing, because, for instance, being raised in a reasonably functional home by both of my progenitors is a huge advantage (relative to any of the alternatives), it is also the medium and mean state of people for as far back as we can measure. She argued that it is simply semantics, which I agreed, but I believe that it is a deliberate semantic change meant to overlay a connotation that advantages are in some way unjustly bestowed.
My counterpoint is it is incorrect to frame a cross-cultural, time-stable normative state and call it a privilege. My counterpoint was that the ability to see is not a privilege- we should be understanding of the significant disadvantage those with a diminished capability (whether the deficit is triggered sociologically, genetically, or through acute trauma), but I think advantages in general as privilege is a deliberate semantic imposition aimed at creating guilt for advantages, regardless of whether those advantages are in the physical or sociological realm.
My colleague and I found common ground on the idea that the eventual goal in a more just society is to distribute advantage as widely as possible when possible, so that disadvantages aren't arbitrarily imposed or maintained and individuals are as free as possible to make the most out of the hand they are dealt. However, the outcome of a more just society from this framework will be to unleash people to drive their inherent advantages as far as their will, capabilities, and imagination will take them- and this will result in tremendous inequity.
Thank you for this post. This is a much larger problem than most are willing or want to admit.
I often joke that the fall of civilization began when we redefined literally to mean figuratively.
Of course the practice of redefining words to “deceive, inveigle and obfuscate” is nothing new, but I like to point to this classic:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
The ex-post-facto redefinition of a term for political ass-covering is not new. I seem to remember the Obama administration redefining the calculation for the unemployment rate when things were looking particularly bleak.
I'm sure it's been happening for as long as we've had politics, but it certainly is becoming more noticeable these days.
"Smart people who make their trade through the use of words are particularly susceptible to this tactic."
And that's why George Carlin was the Greatest of all Time
Seems to me that the essence of "let's play a word game instead" is the word (sorry) "instead". Isn't the person proposing "instead" implicitly acknowledging he or she lacks confidence in the ability to persuade others that he or she has a serious policy proposal to address the problem at hand?
Random thoughts that might or might not fit in with what you're saying:
1. The GOP used to be a lot better at this game. Remember "death panels" and "death taxes"? They were redefinitions of "end-of-life care provision" and "estate taxes" that were highly effective, even though the former was probably completely out of line. They poisoned the "liberal" well too; "progressive" seems to be more popular these days. Arguably "election integrity" is a modern-day incarnation, though maybe that's more of a motte-and-bailey thing.
2. I actually like some redefinitions I've seen: "car crash" instead of "car accident", "enslaved people" instead of "slaves". For all of the problems you've detailed, there's a benefit in being able to better articulate things and use rhetorical framing to advance your side of the argument. I *think* "gun safety" can go into this bucket: If you really believe that you need gun control and you need to persuade, and the thing keeping people from persuading is the "control" part, then...yeah, you'd want to come up with a better way to make your case!
3. I read an article once that talked about how some people do this stuff because they're otherwise powerless. My takeaway was that people who control the discourse can't change policy, but they can tweet about it and change style guides, which can have a trickle-down effect.
4. Matt Yglesias wrote a piece that's in the same universe as yours: https://www.slowboring.com/p/words-arent-magic - basically just saying that while messaging is important, it can't be a substitute for good policy.
I guess if I have a point, it's that this stuff isn't inherently bad, but like all things that are inherently bad, it can be weaponized. So I think you're doing the right thing: getting people to see what it is so we don't get hoodwinked by it at least, and at most we can push back on it or reject it outright.
I was having a conversation with a colleague who insisted that every advantage that anyone is dealt in the random shuffling of life circumstances is privilege. I took issue with the framing, because, for instance, being raised in a reasonably functional home by both of my progenitors is a huge advantage (relative to any of the alternatives), it is also the medium and mean state of people for as far back as we can measure. She argued that it is simply semantics, which I agreed, but I believe that it is a deliberate semantic change meant to overlay a connotation that advantages are in some way unjustly bestowed.
My counterpoint is it is incorrect to frame a cross-cultural, time-stable normative state and call it a privilege. My counterpoint was that the ability to see is not a privilege- we should be understanding of the significant disadvantage those with a diminished capability (whether the deficit is triggered sociologically, genetically, or through acute trauma), but I think advantages in general as privilege is a deliberate semantic imposition aimed at creating guilt for advantages, regardless of whether those advantages are in the physical or sociological realm.
My colleague and I found common ground on the idea that the eventual goal in a more just society is to distribute advantage as widely as possible when possible, so that disadvantages aren't arbitrarily imposed or maintained and individuals are as free as possible to make the most out of the hand they are dealt. However, the outcome of a more just society from this framework will be to unleash people to drive their inherent advantages as far as their will, capabilities, and imagination will take them- and this will result in tremendous inequity.