MCViewPoint

Correct, the whole objective is to confuse, muddy, and befuddle thoughts

https://www.caseyresearch.com/doug-casey-offensive-words/

Justin’s note: Stop saying offensive words.

That’s what the Associated Press (AP) is telling writers.

You see, the AP puts out a stylebook every year that includes universal guidelines for stylistic matters like punctuation, capitalization, and even word choice.

In a recent version, the AP encouraged writers to not use words such as “pro-life,” “migrant,” “refugee,” “Islamist,” and “terrorist.”

It’s completely ludicrous. Yet, sadly, it’s a sign of the times.

It’s like Orwell’s worst nightmare is coming true. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the idea behind “doublethink” is to alter the nature of language. Big Brother wants to reduce the number of words that exist, eliminating those that describe non-PC thoughts and actions. They seem to want to institute Newspeak—complete with thoughtcrime, goodthink, bellyfeel, and prolefeed….

Could we do the same thing with a few of the words that the AP blacklisted? Let’s start with “pro-life.” Should writers really say “anti-abortion” instead?

Doug: Well, the term “pro-life” expresses a certain moral stance, with implied political preferences. It’s a favorable towards giving birth to babies. It has that connotation.

“Anti-abortion,” however, means exactly the same thing. But it’s better rhetorical technique to be “pro” than “anti”—to be for something than against something. The other side says they’re “pro-choice.”

In fact, in a neutral context, one that has nothing to do with babies and abortion, most people of good will are both “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” Who would be “anti-life” or “anti-choice”?

It’s all about influencing the hoi polloi by using words cleverly. If the argument was conducted on strictly intellectual grounds—which it’s not, it’s conducted on mostly emotional grounds—the proper words would be neutral. But they don’t want people to think, they want them to feel.

The whole subject is intellectually dishonest. Both sides attempt appealing to emotion and the psychological aberrations of the listeners, not cool reason.

Justin: Sounds like these guidelines only make things more confusing. Is that the point?

Doug: Correct, the whole objective is to confuse, muddy, and befuddle thoughts….

Don’t we know it. Be seeing you