Maybe its not misinformation, but rather doublespeak.

[Twilight Hue]

Well to borrow a page from my annoyingly specific family, tell me in your own words?

Go on. Humour me.

Refer to post

Maybe its not misinformation, but rather doublespeak..

I have no need to repeat myself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Unabridged dictionaries?
Forgive me, I’m Australian. So we only have you know, dictionaries.
(Abridged texts are solely for people who can’t read the classics properly )
Can you give me examples as to the differences and the links, if you would be so kind

Also, root changes? Are you seriously talking semantics right now? Really?

My mistake. I meant abridged dictionaries.

 

[SomeRandom]

Refer to post

Maybe its not misinformation, but rather doublespeak..

I have no need to repeat myself.

Very well.
Forgive my awful internet connection.

The man seems well versed in rhetorical techniques. There is indeed much I can agree with in the original video.

Yes language can and has been manipulated. From the time of Aristotle and before no doubt.
That doesn’t answer my original question of what makes the dictionary changes in the 21st century (to be somewhat specific) different to the changes made in the past. Which was my original question that I asked.

You made a claim that it was potentially due to the infamous “PC brigade.”
I merely asked for substantiation.

But if you want to rely on your OP and let it speak for itself, then so be it.

I will come back an interpret that post when I feel I’m more coherent (lol)

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to perhaps clarify your position on dictionaries, their changes, what constitutes “PC changes” verses the thousands of other changes in the past in your own words.
But you do you, my friend

Hope your night is going well

 

[Twilight Hue]

Very well.
Forgive my awful internet connection.

The man seems well versed in rhetorical techniques. There is indeed much I can agree with in the original video.

Yes language can and has been manipulated. From the time of Aristotle and before no doubt.
That doesn’t answer my original question of what makes the dictionary changes in the 21st century (to be somewhat specific) different to the changes made in the past. Which was my original question that I asked.

You made a claim that it was due to the PC brigade. I asked for substantiation.

But if you want to rely on your OP and let it speak for itself, then so be it.

I will come back an interpret that post when I feel I’m more coherent (lol)

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to perhaps clarify your position on dictionaries, their changes, what constitutes “PC changes” verses the thousands of other changes in the past in your own words.
But you do you, friend

I meant abridged dictionaries. My fault on that one.

Again though, it's all in the op vid.

My own words are abridged dictionaries show all the changes, so it's not hard to recognize how radically and intentionally words are used to fit a set criteria, or even agenda, by noting how far from its orginal root meaning the new meaning had drifted.

 

[SomeRandom]

I meant abridged dictionaries. My fault on that one.

Again though, it's all in the op vid.

My own words are abridged dictionaries show all the changes, so it's not hard to recognize how radically and intentionally words are used to fit a set criteria, or even agenda, by noting how far from its orginal root meaning the new meaning had drifted.

Well words tend to change drastically just in general.
Language in general is very old and there are a whole lot of words that have completely different modern meanings to their original ones. Even antithetical ones.
(“Nice” originally meaning a fool or naive,
“awful” originally meaning full of awe, “flirt” meaning to strike a sharp blow at, “cute” to mean quick witted originally etc just off the top of my head.)
I don’t know if I’d immediately go the conspiratorial route, despite it being a far more fun one admittedly.
Linguistics tends to be rather persnickety by default and is mainly ruled by the common lexicon. Meaning that slang and people misusing words just in general tend to define them in the long run. No cabal needed
(See the word “literally” for an easy example.)
That there are abridged dictionaries does not strike me as odd in the slightest. Ever tried arguing semantics with a linguist?
I don’t wish that on my worst enemy lol
And I’m sorry. I fail to see a connection in this supposed changing of root meanings. Just looks like modern slang flustering the old guard (no offence) like has happened throughout the centuries. A tale as old as time, one might say
A cliche even.
You my friend are now the old man yelling at the lawn. It’s ok. Happens to the best of us


(This post is in the spirit of jest. Please don’t take it super seriously)

 

[Revoltingest]

But anyone who’s encountered a very fervent pro life protester irl (and even online) has encountered something along those lines.

Still, the notion that women must claim to be "people"
is pure histrionics. Moreover, I find it dishonest when
pro-abortion types ignore pro-lifers view that the fetus
is a person, & instead make it about solely a desire
to oppress women. Tis naught but demonization by
misrepresentation.

BTW, I've also been threatened by those goons.
(Landlords who own medical buildings are so warned
against renting to docs who perform abortions.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you want the answer...

I don't recall asking you a question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Still, the notion that women must claim to be "people"
is pure histrionics. Moreover, I find it dishonest when
pro-abortion types ignore pro-lifers view that the fetus
is a person, & instead make it about solely a desire
to oppress women. Tis naught but demonization by
misrepresentation.

BTW, I've also been threatened by those goons.
(Landlords who own medical buildings are so warned
against renting to docs who perform abortions.)

In your opinion of course. Because you are not dishonest, they are. Well, we are all dishonest, I just try to be honest about that. And that is my opinion.

 

[wellwisher]

The worse example of misinformation in American Politics was the Trump and Russian Collusion nonsense. That story still continues; second act. More recently, due to continuing investigations into the origins of this collusion claim, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton and the DNC was brought to trial for giving false information to the FBI; collusion nonsense. Upon testimony for the defense, a witness for the defense spilled the beans and said the collusion scam was a hoax and the brain child of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

This hoax was not double speak, but a purposeful array of consistent lies and misinformation, fed to the media, that was eagerly repeated by some, constantly, until it was assumed to be true. Not everyone was fooled. But if you were right back then, you were assumed to wrong, due to the number of gullible people who marched lockstep; mob rule.

Many people may not even know about these newest developments in worse political and mass media hoax in American Politics history. None of guilty news outlets, who ran with the originally narrative, are spending much time discussing this newest development. They are trying to keep their viewers and/or their readers in the dark, by not talking about the latest story and its revelations into their own behavior. Misinformation can also be about omitting data, so the audience can draw erroneous conclusions, using cherry picked data.

A unique legal situation is developing, where we; American People, can nip the worse misinformation and deception crowds, in the bud, by setting an example The Mueller investigation, for example, was justified by the lie. It wasted over $25million of tax payer money on a hoax. I think the tax payer needs to be reimbursed by Clinton, the DNC and vocal liars like Adam Schiff. Jail would be fine, but I am being merciful.

The Mueller team of 20 lawyers should also have to pay back their gotten wages, since they should have discovered the truth about the DNC and reported it. To get it all wrong and/or to omit this truth looks like malpractice at best and conspiracy at worse; defraud the American people by omitting data.

What I would also do is set an example of all media outlets who cheerled on the deception. Anyone can be fooled for a week of two, until you could do your research. But anyone who was still fooled after 2 years needs a dope slap to they are more careful next time.

One possible solution is to take away press passes for say 2 years, like the duration of the hoax. The guilty or incompetent journalists will lose all freedoms of the press, but still have freedom of speech. They will now be vulnerable to liable and slander law suits. This will help them recover.

We should also punish the owners and executive leaders of media outlets who prospered by the lie. Maybe all their news and opinion based programming will need to display a scarlet letter overlay, which states, you cannot trust what they say to be true, since they lack the skills needed to do objective journalism. Once you impact their money, change will occur as heads roll, internally.

The members of the Intel agencies who pushed and ran with this story need to be demoted since they have shown they lack the skills to spot misinformation. They are compromised, and need to be reassign to easier jobs in remote locations where they can do less harm.

NPR is a unique situation in that it is partially funded by the tax payers, and like the rest of government is bloated with overhead and personal. They also failed to show journalist credibility, with the collusion hoax. They were too willing to run with the propaganda and misinformation. I would cut them off from tax payer funds for two years and even expect a rebate for their two years of public disservice. They can still seek private donations and will be treated like the rest of the misinformed public sector press; loss of their journalist credentials and a warning label on all news programming.

The reason I am not just laughing this off is because part of the deception game plan involved harassing and even jailing innocent people, to make the hoax appear even more believable. It shows some of the extreme consequences that spin off from from the dark sides of people, who willingly practice misinformation. There may be the need for some people going to jail and paying damages to those who they knowingly hurt as pawns in their disinformation scam. I would also allow law suits to make their victims whole.

I also believe the political class, who went along and made money off the talk show circuit, with the hoax need to have a day of reckoning. This will make good TV and will cut the head off the snake for at least one generation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The worse example of misinformation in American Politics was the Trump and Russian Collusion nonsense. That story still continues; second act. More recently, due to continuing investigations into the origins of this collusion claim, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton and the DNC was brought to trial for giving false information to the FBI; collusion nonsense. Upon testimony for the defense, a witness for the defense spilled the beans and said the collusion scam was a hoax and the brain child of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

This hoax was not double speak, but a purposeful array of consistent lies and misinformation, fed to the media, that was eagerly repeated by some, constantly, until it was assumed to be true. Not everyone was fooled. But if you were right back then, you were assumed to wrong, due to the number of gullible people who marched lockstep; mob rule.

Many people may not even know about these newest developments in worse political and mass media hoax in American Politics history. None of guilty news outlets, who ran with the originally narrative, are spending much time discussing this newest development. They are trying to keep their viewers and/or their readers in the dark, by not talking about the latest story and its revelations into their own behavior. Misinformation can also be about omitting data, so the audience can draw erroneous conclusions, using cherry picked data.

A unique legal situation is developing, where we; American People, can nip the worse misinformation and deception crowds, in the bud, by setting an example The Mueller investigation, for example, was justified by the lie. It wasted over $25million of tax payer money on a hoax. I think the tax payer needs to be reimbursed by Clinton, the DNC and vocal liars like Adam Schiff. Jail would be fine, but I am being merciful.

The Mueller team of 20 lawyers should also have to pay back their gotten wages, since they should have discovered the truth about the DNC and reported it. To get it all wrong and/or to omit this truth looks like malpractice at best and conspiracy at worse; defraud the American people by omitting data.

What I would also do is set an example of all media outlets who cheerled on the deception. Anyone can be fooled for a week of two, until you could do your research. But anyone who was still fooled after 2 years needs a dope slap to they are more careful next time.

One possible solution is to take away press passes for say 2 years, like the duration of the hoax. The guilty or incompetent journalists will lose all freedoms of the press, but still have freedom of speech. They will now be vulnerable to liable and slander law suits. This will help them recover.

We should also punish the owners and executive leaders of media outlets who prospered by the lie. Maybe all their news and opinion based programming will need to display a scarlet letter overlay, which states, you cannot trust what they say to be true, since they lack the skills needed to do objective journalism. Once you impact their money, change will occur as heads roll, internally.

The members of the Intel agencies who pushed and ran with this story need to be demoted since they have shown they lack the skills to spot misinformation. They are compromised, and need to be reassign to easier jobs in remote locations where they can do less harm.

NPR is a unique situation in that it is partially funded by the tax payers, and like the rest of government is bloated with overhead and personal. They also failed to show journalist credibility, with the collusion hoax. They were too willing to run with the propaganda and misinformation. I would cut them off from tax payer funds for two years and even expect a rebate for their two years of public disservice. They can still seek private donations and will be treated like the rest of the misinformed public sector press; loss of their journalist credentials and a warning label on all news programming.

The reason I am not just laughing this off is because part of the deception game plan involved harassing and even jailing innocent people, to make the hoax appear even more believable. It shows some of the extreme consequences that spin off from from the dark sides of people, who willingly practice misinformation. There may be the need for some people going to jail and paying damages to those who they knowingly hurt as pawns in their disinformation scam. I would also allow law suits to make their victims whole.

I also believe the political class, who went along and made money off the talk show circuit, with the hoax need to have a day of reckoning. This will make good TV and will cut the head off the snake for at least one generation.

Duly noted. Now we will win and you will be send to the reeducation camps.

 

[SomeRandom]

Still, the notion that women must claim to be "people"
is pure histrionics. Moreover, I find it dishonest when
pro-abortion types ignore pro-lifers view that the fetus
is a person, & instead make it about solely a desire
to oppress women. Tis naught but demonization by
misrepresentation.

I wholeheartedly agree.
But see. Abortion, as much as we like to tie in politics and religion and logic and blah blah blah is centrally emotional.
I don’t say that to disparage one side or the other, I just view it as such. Somewhat inherently. As a topic. I don’t mean that that decides it for everyone, I think that one’s ability to compartmentalise this issue may determine where they fall on the issue ultimately
Again just a generalisation.

You could drag in a doctor who could spout all sorts of objective scientific data, net benefits, deficits and the sort into the equation.
The pro life side (baring some in the middle) will likely hold their ground regardless. May we even do so out of party loyalty (I won’t pretend to understand that. But it seems to be a thing in politics nonetheless.)
On top of that the “pro life” side will no doubt bring up anecdote after anecdote of how wonderful life is, how souls are proofs of god, how we shouldn’t squander such a miraculous gift from the divine and yada yada.
I’ve heard it all before. From both sides. And whilst I do think there will be folks swayed by either argument depending on their personal sensibilities (and that’s fine) I have to give the logics to the so called “pro abortion” side. Less logical fallacies overall. (Not none, but less.)
Regardless of my personal stance though, I agree that both sides speak past each other. But if one dehumanises and speaks in mostly emotional rhetoric, I can’t in good faith demonise the other. And I’m sorry but the proof is in the pudding and the pro life side do exactly that
Their rhetoric does just that. Time and time and time again. They’re practically cliches by now. Geez we were using their talking points as examples of cliches back in High School, ffs
I’m all for empathy but come on. I’m pro life (religiously speaking) and I roll my eyes at the cliches

BTW, I've also been threatened by those goons.
(Landlords who own medical buildings are so warned
against renting to docs who perform abortions.)

Wow. America/Canada is weird

 

[Revoltingest]

I wholeheartedly agree.
But see. Abortion, as much as we like to tie in politics and religion and logic and blah blah blah is centrally emotional.
I don’t say that to disparage one side or the other, I just view it as such. Somewhat inherently. As a topic. I don’t mean that that decides it for everyone, I think that one’s ability to compartmentalise this issue may determine where they fall on the issue ultimately
Again just a generalisation.

You could drag in a doctor who could spout all sorts of objective scientific data, net benefits, deficits and the sort into the equation.
The pro life side (baring some in the middle) will likely hold their ground regardless. May we even do so out of party loyalty (I won’t pretend to understand that. But it seems to be a thing in politics nonetheless.)
On top of that the “pro life side will no doubt bring up anecdote after anecdote of how wonderful life is, how souls are proofs of god, how we shouldn’t squander such a miraculous gift from the divine and yada yada.
I’ve heard it all before. From both sides. And whilst I do think there will be folks swayed by either argument depending on their personal sensibilities (and that’s fine) I have to give the logics to the so called “pro abortion” side. Less logical fallacies overall. (Not none, but less.)
Regardless of my personal stance though, I agree that both sides speak past each other. But if one dehumanises and speaks in mostly emotional rhetoric, I can’t in good faith demonise the other. And I’m sorry proof is in the pudding but the the pro life side do exactly that
Their rhetoric does just that. Time and time and time again. They’re practically cliches by now. Geez we were using their talking points as examples of cliches back in High School, ffs


Wow. America/Canada is weird

I see scientific facts as irrelevant to abortion rights.
The beginning of a heartbeat, the formation of limbs,
the ability to feel pain...all are arbitrary milestones
that fervent advocates seize upon to justify a view
that they independently held.

 

[SomeRandom]

I see scientific facts as irrelevant to abortion rights.
The beginning of a heartbeat, the formation of limbs,
the ability to feel pain...all are arbitrary milestones
that fervent advocates seize upon to justify a view
that they independently held.

Only in response to their opponents.
Who would care if a fetus has a heartbeat othwerwise?
Iirc doesn’t the OT say that life begins at the first breath?
So clearly it’s not entirely religiously motivated. At least not from an Abrahamic standpoint. Perhaps there’s a verse (very) specific to this in the NT that someone can point me to.
No this strikes me as political in nature. And American politics at that

I’m not Abrahamic so I’m certainly not beholden to such rules anyway.
Neither am I American. So I certainly aren’t going to pal around with the religious right
(Sorry, I’m sure they’re wonderful folks.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see scientific facts as irrelevant to abortion rights.
The beginning of a heartbeat, the formation of limbs,
the ability to feel pain...all are arbitrary milestones
that fervent advocates seize upon to justify a view
that they independently held.

And that you see scientific facts as irrelevant to abortion rights is arbitrary. We can all play this game of "I see":
Perceive with the eyes; discern visually versus discern or deduce after reflection or from information; understand.
So I see it differently, because I don't see, that you see.
See words are funny.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only in response to their opponents.
Who would care if a fetus has a heartbeat othwerwise?
Iirc doesn’t the OT say that life begins at the first breath?
So clearly it’s not entirely religiously motivated. At least not from an Abrahamic standpoint. Perhaps there’s a verse (very) specific to this in the NT that someone can point me to.
No this strikes me as political in nature. And American politics at that

I’m not Abrahamic so I’m certainly not beholden to such rules anyway.
Neither am I American. So I certainly aren’t going to pal around with the religious right
(Sorry, I’m sure they’re wonderful folks.)

I gots no Bible learn'n, so I can't speak to its proscriptions.
I don't claim when "life" begins.
All I want is a useful compromise between the 2 warring factions.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that you see scientific facts as irrelevant to abortion rights is arbitrary.

Not fully arbitrary.
I base my views on the individual's bodily autonomy.
The mother controls what happens to & in her body.
Same for men...just with far fewer pregnancies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not fully arbitrary.
I base my views on the individual's bodily autonomy.
The mother controls what happens to & in her body.
Same for men...just with far fewer pregnancies.

Yet for a 3rd trimester you have a life in most cases if born.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet for a 3rd trimester you have a life in most cases if born.

That is a fact.
Some use it to oppose abortion thereafter.
It would likely figure into any compromise
between the sides.
Still....it's not "The Truth". Just one milestone
to which people attach significance....or not.

 

[74x12]

Modern dictionaries are getting more words. In Newspeak, language is being purposely pared down to limit thought. So new editions of dictionaries are actually doing the opposite of Newspeak.

Modern dictionaries are changing definitions and adding new definitions to obscure meaning.

 

[74x12]

Modern dictionaries are getting more words. In Newspeak, language is being purposely pared down to limit thought. So new editions of dictionaries are actually doing the opposite of Newspeak.

I've covered this elsewhere but there is a fine line you must walk when it comes to language. Too simple and it stunts thought.
Too complex and it creates confusion and over complicates communication. This is done on purpose to keep people in the dark and confused. It's very dishonest.