Succeeding Through Word Manipulation

[wenglund]

In the religious and political marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are equally sensible or practical or workable or appealing, etc.

 

Since some words represent and significantly modify certain ideas, and since some people harboring inferior ideas may wish to elevate them, manipulation of those words have been used to gain at least the illusion of parity or advantage.

 

This thread is devoted to discussing how certain words have been manipulated in hopes of advancing certain religious/political ideas.

 

In posts to come, I will address at least two such word games--i.e. "word redefinitions" and "censoring words." I invite you to not only respond to the word manipulations I will identify, but feel free to identify some of your own.

 

The hoped-for value to be derived from such a discussion is diminishing the risk of people being inanely manipulated by word games.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

The mall was built using tithing money.

 

The Mormon church is a huge corporation.

[thesometimesaint]

The word manipulation itself a neutral word. IE; I manipulate a keyboard to use my computer. OTOH If I manipulate your emotions for my own selfish desires then it becomes a not so nice word.

[Senator]

..Eternal damnation..

[wenglund]

A popular word manipulation technique that has been actively employed in recent decades is the redefining of words. This technique has been necessitated because certain ideas don't make sense or aren't as appealing, etc., under the old definition, and so the definitions are changed to make certain ideas seem sensible or appealing, etc.

 

For example, for centuries, if not millennium, the word "marriage" (generally and legally) has essentially referred to the relationship between a man and a women. Granted, there have been variations on this theme (polygamy, common law, open, non-interracial, etc.), but the same essential theme.

 

Under the longstanding definition, the notion of homosexual marriage is/was oxymoronic, and it would have been inane to include homosexual relationships under the banner of "marriage rights" and "marriage equality." Within the longstanding definition of "marriage," the notion of SSM made no sense and had no chance in the marketplace of ideas.

 

However, to give the idea of SSM a leg up, this necessitated redefining the term more generally to include other combinations of consenting adults. The old definition needed to be manipulated and turned on its head to include relationships that had previously been implicitly, if not explicitly, excluded.

 

This redefinition of the word "marriage" has been widely successful for its proponents, even to the point of gaining leverage in public opinion and the highest courts of the land, though the full cost of the manipulation are yet to be seen.

 

Another example manipulating words through redefinition is the term "Christian." Over the last several decades, certain vocal Evangelicals have recognized that their religious ideas may have been less appealing than some of their Christian competitors, and so they have attempted to level the playing field, and perhaps gain advantage, by de-Christianizing some of their competitors, and this through supplanting the generally accepted definition with their own idiosyncratic definition. 

 

This second example hasn't been as successful in the marketplace of ideas as the first, but it has still been somewhat successful in certain spheres.

 

Other examples include redefining words like anti-Mormon, apostate, sin, etc.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 4, 2013 by wenglund

[CV75]

In the religious and political marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are equally sensible or practical or workable or appealing, etc.

 

Since some words represent and significantly modify certain ideas, and since some people harboring inferior ideas may wish to elevate them, manipulation of those words have been used to gain at least the illusion of parity or advantage.

 

This thread is devoted to discussing how certain words have been manipulated in hopes of advancing certain religious/political ideas.

 

In posts to come, I will address at least two such word games--i.e. "word redefinitions" and "censoring words." I invite you to not only respond to the word manipulations I will identify, but feel free to identify some of your own.

 

The hoped-for value to be derived from such a discussion is diminishing the risk of people being inanely manipulated by word games.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The redefiniton of "Marriage" of course is one.

 

In my mind, part and parcel to that is "Sexual Relations," which definiton has eroded.

 

“Sexual” by definition relates to the two sexes or genders, not just one. “Relations” by definition relates to two or more people, not just one. The very notion of sexual relations requires two sexes (of the same species) to be engaged, not one, and not by oneself.

 

The LDS commandment about “sexual relations” is very clear about involving the relations between men and women within marriage. This is why any other kind of engagement of the powers, parts or passions of reproduction outside of that structure does not qualify for marriage or anything else meriting an eternal covenant with the Lord.

 

[thesometimesaint]

What else would you call a legally established committed long term consenting adult relationship that includes sexual activities? You could call it sinfull, and/or a host of other adjectives, but it is still a marriage in the eyes of the law. I still prefer getting governments out of marriage business altogether. Make them all legally enforceable Domestic Partnerships. Let religions put any meaning to their religious ceremonies that they prefer.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In the religious and political marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are equally sensible or practical or workable or appealing, etc.

 

Since some words represent and significantly modify certain ideas, and since some people harboring inferior ideas may wish to elevate them, manipulation of those words have been used to gain at least the illusion of parity or advantage.

 

This thread is devoted to discussing how certain words have been manipulated in hopes of advancing certain religious/political ideas.

 

In posts to come, I will address at least two such word games--i.e. "word redefinitions" and "censoring words." I invite you to not only respond to the word manipulations I will identify, but feel free to identify some of your own.

 

The hoped-for value to be derived from such a discussion is diminishing the risk of people being inanely manipulated by word games.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When it comes to Religion or Politics it has always been this way, at least as I have been involved. Seeking to use debate skills is called diversion on most sites that discuss either or.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Liberal is one such word. So is pro choice. Sorry most of the words I know are political. Because well that is why they were manipulated was to gain a political advatage.

 

Gay Marriage is another one. I would wager that homophobic is one as well.

[jkwilliams]

Here's the problem: language is constantly evolving and changing; that's its nature. Trying to stop the language from evolving is, to borrow a phrase, as futile as putting forth your arm to try and stop the Mississippi River in its flow.

 

A lot of words have changed over the millennia. "Citizen," for example, is a pretty basic word in our political vocabulary, but its definition today is much different than it was in Roman times or even when the US Constitution was written. Oddly enough, however, I don't see anyone clamoring to restore the "true" definition of the word "citizen."

[CA Steve]

Christian

[thesometimesaint]

Saint.

[wenglund]

Another popular word game is the manipulative and oft dubious employment of censoring and emotionally charged words like: hate speech, bigot, prejudice, discrimination, homophobic, inflammatory, uncivil, intolerant, etc., 

 

While these censoring words were once reserved legitimately for extreme cases, they are now being illegitimately pressed into service against more moderate cases, and this so as to eliminate, degrade, and dismiss opposing views, and for lack of competitive merit in the face of other ideas.

 

For example, as illustrated in the thread on "Responding to Accusations of Hate Speech," the notion that homosexual behavior is sinful and perverse, is being illegitimately labeled as hate speech and so forth.

 

How did this happen?

 

Well, gay activists have been very busy over the last 30 years carefully cultivating an image of love and commitment and harmlessness.

 

However, because this carefully cultivated image conflicts with certain less-than loving, committed, and harmful realities, then rather than rationally addressing and acknowledging the words and ideas that account for these unflattering realities (presumably because they can't do so effectively), gay activist and their willing supporters have used the manipulative power of being offended to engage in hypocritical and obfuscatory and censoring labeling.

 

They understand that if words like sin and perversions can be quashed through self-serving political correctness, then the ideas those words represent can be effectively silenced, thereby leaving unmarred and undeterred the carefully cultivated image of loving committed relationships.

 

This manipulation of censoring words has been quite successful, to the point that more and more people (including Church members) have become quite myopically convinced that homosexual behavior and relationships, which were once widely condemned, are not only harmless, but quite lovely and to be encouraged. What was once considered as bad, is now considered as good. Up is down and down is up.

 

Mind you, in terms of consistency, gay activists and supporters don't necessarily have a problem with the words "sin" and "perversion" (or the ideas they represent) per se being applied to things they believe are sinful and perverse, like pedophilia and exhibitionism.

 

So, in their minds the words "sin" and "perversion" aren't inherently hate speech or uncivil.

 

They only selectively become such when used in relation to homosexual behavior, which they no longer view as sinful and perverse.

 

But, even more so, they aren't content with a difference of opinion on what is sinful and perverse, nor do they wish to respectfully leave each to their own. The manipulation of censoring words is intended to fallaciously privilege their own opinion and quash the opposing views.

 

In short, if one's ideas are inferior or uncompetitive, the way to succeed is to play word games through becoming offended by the opposing view (and words used in relation therewith), label the opposing views/words with censoring words, thereby eliminating the opposing views/words from the competition.

 

Of course, this only works if we allow ourselves to be manipulated.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 4, 2013 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

Christian

 

Excellent example. According to some Evangelicals I know, Mormons are attempting to redefine the word "Christian," which is an awful and deceptive manipulation of the word. Some Evangelicals say they are being told that using the correct words to describe Mormonism, such as Satanic and anti-Christ, is counterproductive and hinders dialogue. Undaunted, however, these brave Christian souls will not be manipulated into showing the least degree of tolerance for sin (i.e., "Mormonism").

[canard78]

In my mind, part and parcel to that is "Sexual Relations," which definiton has eroded.

 

“Sexual” by definition relates to the two sexes or genders, not just one. “Relations” by definition relates to two or more people, not just one. The very notion of sexual relations requires two sexes (of the same species) to be engaged, not one, and not by oneself.

 

The LDS commandment about “sexual relations” is very clear about involving the relations between men and women within marriage. This is why any other kind of engagement of the powers, parts or passions of reproduction outside of that structure does not qualify for marriage or anything else meriting an eternal covenant with the Lord.

Wow! That's some of the most impressive word manipulation I've seen.

Sex is from Latin sexus "a sex, state of being either male or female, gender,"

Meaning "quality of being male or female" first recorded 1520s. Meaning "sexual intercourse" first attested 1929 (in writings of D.H. Lawrence); meaning "genitalia" is attested from 1938.

Sexual is from 1650s, "of or pertaining to the fact of being male or female," from Late Latin sexualis "relating to sex," from Latin sexus.

Either male or female. There no requirement for it to be both.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sex

Relations:

intercourse (n.)

mid-15c., "communication to and fro," from Old French entrecours "exchange, commerce," from Late Latin intercursus "a running between, intervention," from intercursus, past participle of intercurrere "to run between," from Latin inter- "between" (see inter-) + currere "to run" (see current (adj.)). Meaning "sexual relations" first recorded 1798, from earlier sense "social contact and relations" (1540s).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=relations&searchmode=none

It's not relations as in 'relationship' it's meaning is contact, intercourse, interaction. It's just a polite way of describing sex.

[thesometimesaint]

Another popular word game is the manipulative and oft dubious employment of censoring and emotionally charged words like: hate speech, bigot, prejudice, discrimination, homophobic, inflammatory, uncivil, intolerant, etc., 

 

While these censoring words were once reserved legitimately for extreme cases, they are now being illegitimately pressed into service against more moderate cases, and this so as to eliminate, degrade, and dismiss opposing views, and for lack of competitive merit in the face of other ideas.

 

For example, as illustrated in the thread on "Responding to Accusations of Hate Speech," the notion that homosexual behavior is sinful and perverse, is being illegitimately labeled as hate speech and so forth.

 

How did this happen?

 

Well, gay activists have been very busy over the last 30 years carefully cultivating an image of love and commitment and harmlessness.

 

However, because this carefully cultivated image conflicts with certain less-than loving, committed, and harmful realities, then rather than rationally addressing and acknowledging the words and ideas that account for these unflattering realities (presumably because they can't do so effectively), gay activist and their willing supporters have used the manipulative power of being offended to engage in hypocritical and obfuscatory and censoring labeling.

 

They understand that if words like sin and perversions can be quashed through self-serving political correctness, then the ideas those words represent can be effectively silences, thereby leaving unmarred and undeterred the carefully cultivated image of loving committed relationships.

 

This manipulation of censoring words has been quite successful, to the point that more and more people (including Church members) have become quite convinced that homosexual behavior and relationships, which were once widely condemned, are not only harmless, but quite lovely and to be encouraged. What was once considered as bad, is now considered as good. Up is down and down is up.

 

Mind you, in terms of consistency, gay activists and supporters don't necessarily have a problem with the words "sin" and "perversion" (or the ideas they represent) being applied to things they believe are sinful and perverse, like pedophilia and exhibitionism.

 

So, in their minds the words "sin" and "perversion" aren't inherently hate speech or uncivil.

 

They only become such when selectively used in relation to homosexual behavior, which they no longer view as sinful and perverse.

 

But, even more so, they aren't content with a difference of opinion on what is sinful and perverse, nor do they wish to respectfully leave each to their own. The manipulation of censoring words is intended to fallaciously privilege their own opinion and quash the opposing views.

 

In short, if one's ideas are inferior or uncompetitive, the way to succeed is to play word games through becoming offended by the opposing view (and words used in relation therewith), label the opposing views/words with censoring words, thereby eliminating the opposing views/words from the competition.

 

Of course, this only works if we allow ourselves to be manipulated.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Now we skip to what is truly effective in changing long term behaviors to labeling. Don't get this wrong if labeling were truly effective i'd say go for it. BUT IT IS NOT.

 

Has the label Anti-Mormon been effective in eliminating the Anti-Mormons?

[wenglund]

What else would you call a legally established committed long term consenting adult relationship that includes sexual activities?

 

If needs be, one way to distinguish these exceptions from the general rule of short-term or uncommitted homosexual relations, are terms like domestic partnerships or civil unions, etc. There is no need to radically manipulate the definition of marriage in order to make such a distinction--except where one's agenda won't succeed otherwise (which happens to be my point).

 

You could call it sinfull, and/or a host of other adjectives, but it is still a marriage in the eyes of the law.

 

It is now only sporadically consider such because the definition of marriage has been radically manipulated 9which is my point).

 

I still prefer getting governments out of marriage business altogether. Make them all legally enforceable Domestic Partnerships. Let religions put any meaning to their religious ceremonies that they prefer.

 

Okay. But, this doesn't speak to the issue of word manipulation. The point of this thread isn't to re-animate the debate over SSM, but to identify types of word manipulations using SSM as just one of many examples.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here's the problem: language is constantly evolving and changing; that's its nature. Trying to stop the language from evolving is, to borrow a phrase, as futile as putting forth your arm to try and stop the Mississippi River in its flow.

 

A lot of words have changed over the millennia. "Citizen," for example, is a pretty basic word in our political vocabulary, but its definition today is much different than it was in Roman times or even when the US Constitution was written. Oddly enough, however, I don't see anyone clamoring to restore the "true" definition of the word "citizen."

 

Of course language evolves. To me, that isn't so much a problem as it is, in most cases, welcomed progress.

 

But, I don't necessarily equate word manipulations with language evolution. Sometimes it may be quite the opposite--as with some of the examples I have set forth.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Palerider]

Thought you might enjoy this:

[thesometimesaint]

Excellent example. According to some Evangelicals I know, Mormons are attempting to redefine the word "Christian," which is an awful and deceptive manipulation of the word. Some Evangelicals say they are being told that using the correct words to describe Mormonism, such as Satanic and anti-Christ, is counterproductive and hinders dialogue. Undaunted, however, these brave Christian souls will not be manipulated into showing the least degree of tolerance for sin (i.e., "Mormonism").

 

Not so much. The LDS are pointing out that Christian is generic for a follower of Christ. It is not the exclusive property of a small subset of Protestant Christianity.

 

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

 

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."

 

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant."

 

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist."

 

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist."

 

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

 

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

 

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"

 

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

 

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

 

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

 

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[jkwilliams]

Of course language evolves. To me, that isn't so much a problem as it is, in most cases, welcomed progress.

 

But, I don't necessarily equate word manipulations with language evolution. Sometimes it may be quite the opposite--as with some of the examples I have set forth.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Wade, basically all you're saying here is that you object to changes in language that you dislike and welcome those you like. This is not exactly a revelation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Another popular word game is the manipulative and oft dubious employment of censoring and emotionally charged words like: hate speech, bigot, prejudice, discrimination, homophobic, inflammatory, uncivil, intolerant, etc., 

 

While these censoring words were once reserved legitimately for extreme cases, they are now being illegitimately pressed into service against more moderate cases, and this so as to eliminate, degrade, and dismiss opposing views, and for lack of competitive merit in the face of other ideas.

 

For example, as illustrated in the thread on "Responding to Accusations of Hate Speech," the notion that homosexual behavior is sinful and perverse, is being illegitimately labeled as hate speech and so forth.

 

How did this happen?

 

Well, gay activists have been very busy over the last 30 years carefully cultivating an image of love and commitment and harmlessness.

 

However, because this carefully cultivated image conflicts with certain less-than loving, committed, and harmful realities, then rather than rationally addressing and acknowledging the words and ideas that account for these unflattering realities (presumably because they can't do so effectively), gay activist and their willing supporters have used the manipulative power of being offended to engage in hypocritical and obfuscatory and censoring labeling.

 

They understand that if words like sin and perversions can be quashed through self-serving political correctness, then the ideas those words represent can be effectively silences, thereby leaving unmarred and undeterred the carefully cultivated image of loving committed relationships.

 

This manipulation of censoring words has been quite successful, to the point that more and more people (including Church members) have become quite convinced that homosexual behavior and relationships, which were once widely condemned, are not only harmless, but quite lovely and to be encouraged. What was once considered as bad, is now considered as good. Up is down and down is up.

 

Mind you, in terms of consistency, gay activists and supporters don't necessarily have a problem with the words "sin" and "perversion" (or the ideas they represent) being applied to things they believe are sinful and perverse, like pedophilia and exhibitionism.

 

So, in their minds the words "sin" and "perversion" aren't inherently hate speech or uncivil.

 

They only become such when selectively used in relation to homosexual behavior, which they no longer view as sinful and perverse.

 

But, even more so, they aren't content with a difference of opinion on what is sinful and perverse, nor do they wish to respectfully leave each to their own. The manipulation of censoring words is intended to fallaciously privilege their own opinion and quash the opposing views.

 

In short, if one's ideas are inferior or uncompetitive, the way to succeed is to play word games through becoming offended by the opposing view (and words used in relation therewith), label the opposing views/words with censoring words, thereby eliminating the opposing views/words from the competition.

 

Of course, this only works if we allow ourselves to be manipulated.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Excellent points. This sums up my own thoughts quite well.

[jkwilliams]

Not so much. The LDS are pointing out that Christian is generic for a follower of Christ. It is not the exclusive property of a small subset of Protestant Christianity.

This seems directly analogous to those who say that "marriage" is generic for a legal union of two people. It is not the exclusive property of a subset of religious heterosexuals.

 

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

 

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."

 

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant."

 

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist."

 

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist."

 

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

 

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

 

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"

 

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

 

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

 

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

 

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Oh, I see. You thought I was being serious. I need a sarcasm icon. My point is that the same arguments against "redefining" marriage are being used by some Evangelicals in refusing to allow Mormons to call themselves Christians. It's pointless and divisive in both cases.

[CV75]

It's not relations as in 'relationship' it's meaning is contact, intercourse, interaction. It's just a polite way of describing sex.

I think you're agreeing with me without realizing it.

 

(From the definitions you provided, you indicated that reciprocity has to occur between two complementary genders in order to properly qualify as sexual.)

Edited November 4, 2013 by CV75

[wenglund]

Now we skip to what is truly effective in changing long term behaviors to labeling. Don't get this wrong if labeling were truly effective i'd say go for it. BUT IT IS NOT.

 

Has the label Anti-Mormon been effective in eliminating the Anti-Mormons?

 

This may make sense if the sole intent behind labels is to change long term behaviors. BUT IT ISN'T. 

 

To me, the more prevalent use of word manipulation (labeling) is to change religious/political beliefs and social attitudes, oft towards acceptance of certain behaviors.

 

However, if you doubt that labels can have an influence on long-term behaviors, consider the proportional difference in rates of out-of-wedlock births before and after the term "*******" had been rendered culturally impotent (around the late 60's and early 70's).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-