Succeeding Through Word Manipulation

[jkwilliams]

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-

 

I think you vastly overestimate the influence of vocabulary changes. BTW, something else was happening in the 60s and 70s, and had something to do with the availability of birth control devices and pills. The sexual revolution happened because people were less worried about pregnancy resulting from sex, though obviously their confidence in the ability to have more casual sex without consequences was, to say the least, grossly mistaken. Do you honestly think that use of a particular word had more effect on out-of-wedlock births than did the sexual revolution?

[wenglund]

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.

 

That is one way to radically oversimplify what I have said--which radical oversimplification is, in itself, a form of word manipulation. Nicely done.

 

There was a word that I included, that you conveniently omitted (or censored) in your caricature of my comments, that is vital to correctly understanding what I am basically saying. That word is "progress." My objections are controlled by the traditional meaning of that word.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

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).

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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-

 

Virtually every couple that I know of goes into marriage with the intent in making it last, at least until death do they part. Would a heterosexual couple whose marriage didn't last till death they did part become not a marriage?

 

Why? Religions would still be able to call marriage anything they wanted. Hold any type of ceremony they wanted. Say; if a heterosexual couple is to married in the LDS fashion. They still have get a State mandated license, and get some LDS authorized by the State to conduct that marriage ceremony. If a homosexual couple wanted to get married in whatever religious fashion of their choice. They would still have abide by the State law in which they reside, and the religious dictates of their leaders/congregation.

 

There are lots of examples. As I said the word manipulation is neutral. It is entirely dependent on the context/situation it is used. You used SSM as an example of negative manipulation.

 

Sure calling a rose by the name Limburger cheese calls up images of something sweet.

[wenglund]

I think you vastly overestimate the influence of vocabulary changes. BTW, something else was happening in the 60s and 70s, and had something to do with the availability of birth control devices and pills. The sexual revolution happened because people were less worried about pregnancy resulting from sex, though obviously their confidence in the ability to have more casual sex without consequences was, to say the least, grossly mistaken. Do you honestly think that use of a particular word had more effect on out-of-wedlock births than did the sexual revolution?

 

No. If you had read my comments more carefully you might have noticed that I used the word "influence" without the modifier "most."

 

To me, certain words that can't be posted here were a factor, though certainly not a sole factor, or even necessarily a controlling factor in diluting social mores. I am speaking here of stigmatizing words that not a few people have tried to avoid being applied to them, and this by checking their behavior.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

That is one way to radically oversimplify what I have said--which radical oversimplification is, in itself, a form of word manipulation. Nicely done.

 

There was a word that I included, that you conveniently omitted (or censored) in your caricature of my comments, that is vital to correctly understanding what I am basically saying. That word is "progress." My objections are controlled by the traditional meaning of that word.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Again, you've proven my point exactly: what you call "progress" is change you agree with; "word manipulation," it seems, is reserved for change with which you disagree.

[thesometimesaint]

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-

 

IMNTBHO the law shouldn't care about what two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home do between the bed sheets. Be they hetero/homosexual.

 

Sure you pontificate all you want on what you consider sinfull, even develop a large following of like minded people. The second you cross over into imposing your ideas onto others that don't agree with you open yourself to criticism, even pointed criticism.

 

I seriously doubt calling a woman a whore has changed her sexual activity, nor the men with whom have sex with her. Correlation is not causation. It could well be that ignorance of human sexuality, short term economic advantage and/or lack of emotional support are the real reasons for the rise of out of wedlock pregnancies in the US. We can talk about Bundling Boards if you want.

[wenglund]

Virtually every couple that I know of goes into marriage with the intent in making it last, at least until death do they part. Would a heterosexual couple whose marriage didn't last till death they did part become not a marriage?

 

To my knowledge, neither the traditional (general and legal) definition or the new manipulated definition contain a duration qualifier. So, I have no idea what your question has to do with the topic of this thread.

 

Why? Religions would still be able to call marriage anything they wanted. Hold any type of ceremony they wanted. Say; if a heterosexual couple is to married in the LDS fashion. They still have get a State mandated license, and get some LDS authorized by the State to conduct that marriage ceremony. If a homosexual couple wanted to get married in whatever religious fashion of their choice. They would still have abide by the State law in which they reside, and the religious dictates of their leaders/congregation.

 

The argument wasn't that the manipulation of the word "marriage" would somehow prevent people from entering into traditional marriages, or necessarily force religions to perform non-traditional marriage, but that the manipulation was necessary in order to logically include homosexual relations under the umbrella of "marriage rights" and "marriage equality" and make SSM possible.

 

Sure calling a rose by the name Limburger cheese calls up images of something sweet.

 

My point exactly, though in reverse. Calling Limburger cheese (same-sex relations) a rose ("marriage") doesn't necessarily make it a rose or make it smell sweet, Yet, that is precisely what is being done, and people are now believing the sweetness. For many, the manipulation has worked.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Again, you've proven my point exactly: what you call "progress" is change you agree with; "word manipulation," it seems, is reserved for change with which you disagree.

 

Nowhere did I define "progress" as you just did on my behalf. Those are words you put into my mouth that don't belong there.  So, at best, your straw man has proven your point to exactness. Again, nicely done with the word manipulations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

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."

I don't see, however, that this justifies anarchy or absolute absence of restraint in one's use of linguistic conventions. Taken to its logical extreme, this would render language useless as as communicative tool.

[jkwilliams]

I don't see, however, that this justifies anarchy or absolute absence of restraint in one's use of linguistic conventions. Taken to its logical extreme, this would render language useless as as communicative tool.

 

That's just it: they are just conventions, and conventions change. It would be impossible for language conventions to evolve to a point at which people can't communicate: they evolve because the way people communicate changes. The opposite of "linguistic restraint" isn't anarchy and a complete breakdown of communication.

[jkwilliams]

Nowhere did I define "progress" as you just did on my behalf. Those are words you put into my mouth that don't belong there.  So, at best, your straw man has proven your point to exactness. Again, nicely done with the word manipulations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

How do you define progress, Wade?

[wenglund]

IMNTBHO the law shouldn't care about what two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home do between the bed sheets. Be they hetero/homosexual.

 

Sure you pontificate all you want on what you consider sinfull, even develop a large following of like minded people. The second you cross over into imposing your ideas onto others that don't agree with you open yourself to criticism, even pointed criticism.

 

I have here been speaking about ideas being plied freely in the marketplace of ideas, and you manipulatively characterize it as "imposing your ideas onto others"?

 

And, please know that I welcome criticism, pointed or otherwise--particularly if it has to do with what I have actually said, and isn't some unintended tangent.

 

What I object to is manipulations of my words--except where such may be used as an object lesson in making my point.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

BTW, pointing out the flaw of your basic premise is in no way a straw man. Just saying.

[Scott Lloyd]

This might fall under the classification of censoring words, but in certain quarters these days, it is looked down upon to use terms with the -man construction, such as spokesman, businessman, etc., even when it is obvious that the term is intended to refer to a male. In their place, we have the utterly abominable and awkward -person construction, such as spokesperson and businessperson.

 

This, of course, is a result of the cultural tyranny exercised by the radical feminist movement of a generation ago.

 

Related to this is that it is now widely viewed as unacceptable to use he or his as an indefinite pronoun, as in Let everyone see to his own welfare.

[wenglund]

How do you define progress, Wade?

 

I use the dictionary definition.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

That's just it: they are just conventions, and conventions change. It would be impossible for language conventions to evolve to a point at which people can't communicate: they evolve because the way people communicate changes. The opposite of "linguistic restraint" isn't anarchy and a complete breakdown of communication.

There is a wide territory in between the two. If one ignores the mechanics of good spoken or written communication, one is apt to be viewed as sloppy, careless or half-literate. Understandably so, say I.

[Scott Lloyd]

I use the dictionary definition.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There's a novel thought.

[wenglund]

BTW, pointing out the flaw of your basic premise is in no way a straw man. Just saying.

 

Since that isn't what you did (but instead you radically oversimplified what I said and put words into my mouth that don't belong, both of which are straw men), the irrelevancy need not be said.

 

However, if you can manage to correctly characterize my basic premise, I would be pleased if you are then able to correctly point out the alleged flaw.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

Since that isn't what you did (but instead you radically oversimplified what I said and put words into my mouth that don't belong, both of which are straw men), the irrelevancy need not be said.

 

However, if you can manage to correctly characterize my basic premise, I would be pleased if you are then able to correctly point out the alleged flaw.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The flaw is simple: You seem to believe that there is a valid definition of a word and that misusing that definition or redefining it is wrong, especially is the "manipulation" of the word is deliberate. Such is not the case. Language is fluid, and definitions evolve, just as words evolve. As I mentioned, "citizen" doesn't mean what it did 200 years ago, and marriage doesn't mean what it did in earlier times, either. And in the future, these words will have definitions that differ from the definitions we hold today.

[Scott Lloyd]

The flaw is simple: You seem to believe that there is a valid definition of a word and that misusing that definition or redefining it is wrong, especially is the "manipulation" of the word is deliberate. Such is not the case. Language is fluid, and definitions evolve, just as words evolve. As I mentioned, "citizen" doesn't mean what it did 200 years ago, and marriage doesn't mean what it did in earlier times, either. And in the future, these words will have definitions that differ from the definitions we hold today.

In the late movement to redefine marriage I don't see a gradual evolution so much as i see the forced manipulation that Wade is talking about here.

[california boy]

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.

I have read your posts numerous times proposing this idea.  I have a question.  Do you think religion owns the word marriage?  Has the word marriage ever not been used in a religious ceremony?  Putting aside same sex marriage, do you think that a couple married by the justice of the peace should not be allowed to call their union a marriage?  I am not arguing against what your proposal is, I am just wondering how you specifically feel about these questions.

 

It is odd for me to read a Mormon advocate reserving the name marriage for religion when the Mormon church has redefined what marriage is called within the church.  The church looks at a temple marriage as a sealing or an eternal marriage or a temple marriage.  Two terms that probably will never be used by same sex couples.

Edited November 4, 2013 by california boy

[jkwilliams]

In the late movement to redefine marriage I don't see a gradual evolution so much as i see the forced manipulation that Wade is talking about here.

Sometimes evolution comes by force. As I mentioned, the perfect analogy is the argument over whether Mormons are allowed to call themselves Christians. I know more than a few Evangelicals who think this is a "forced manipulation" on the part of Mormons.

And for the record, as I've said many times, Mormons are Christians. Period. Trying to hold fast to a rigid and exclusionary definition is a fool's errand on the part of Evangelicals and makes proponents look rather petty.

It's the same situation as that of "redefining" marriage.

[Vance]

Affordable, as in "Affordable Care Act".

[Vance]

Keep, as in "If you like your plan you can keep it".

 

Do not politicize this thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This might fall under the classification of censoring words, but in certain quarters these days, it is looked down upon to use terms with the -man construction, such as spokesman, businessman, etc., even when it is obvious that the term is intended to refer to a male. In their place, we have the utterly abominable and awkward -person construction, such as spokesperson and businessperson.

 

This, of course, is a result of the cultural tyranny exercised by the radical feminist movement of a generation ago.

 

Related to this is that it is now widely viewed as unacceptable to use he or his as an indefinite pronoun, as in Let everyone see to his own welfare.

Spot on. I can't tell you how much it bothers me that this change even happened. Just not really an issue. "I mean I hate history because it really should be persontory".