Posted on 08/10/2018 7:20:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A “descriptivist” is someone who studies how language is used. A “prescriptivist” is someone who tells other people how to use language correctly. And while these are often framed as opposing camps, they need not be: A thoughtful descriptivist realizes that strongly established usage patterns should generally be treated as rules by someone who wants to communicate effectively; a thoughtful prescriptivist realizes that the rules emerge from constantly evolving usage patterns.
There’s a certain strain of prescriptivism, though, that merely seeks to impose rules on other people’s language, often on nothing more than one’s own say-so. Overwhelmingly, these folks are harmless-if-annoying self-appointed “sticklers” who insist, for example, that you must not split infinitives or start sentences with conjunctions. But ill-founded prescriptivism also rears its head with political terms, and we’ve been seeing a bit of that lately from the woke left.
Some academics who study racial matters use the word “racism” to mean not “dislike of people on the basis of race,” which is how most people use it, but rather something like “prejudice plus power” or what is more clearly called “institutional” or “systemic” racism — meaning, conveniently, that members of minority groups by definition cannot be racist. And as Scott Alexander noted at Slate Star Codex back in 2014, parts of the Left are no longer willing to admit that this is a departure from standard usage by saying something along the lines of, “I suppose a group of black people chasing a white kid down the street waving knives and yelling ‘KILL WHITEY’ qualifies by most people’s definition, but I prefer to idiosyncratically define it my own way, so just remember that when you’re reading stuff I write.”
Instead, as Alexander writes, “we have a case where original coinage, all major dictionaries, and the overwhelming majority of common usage all define ‘racism’ one way, and social justice bloggers insist with astonishing fervor that way is totally wrong and it must be defined another.” I am not entirely sure if this is a conscious effort to redefine the word — and by pretending it’s already defined this way they’re “gaslighting” us — or if they have drunk so much Kool-Aid that they can say this in all sincerity. When called on it, many simply point to academic definitions, as though academia had the power to redefine words for the rest of society; that, of course, is not how language works.
There was a similar (if much smaller) kerfuffle in 2015 regarding the word “baby.” As I demonstrated at the time, “baby” and its predecessor “babe” have been in use for centuries, and English speakers have never shied away from describing pregnant women as having “babies” or “babes” in their wombs. And yet during that year’s Planned Parenthood controversy, some insisted it was incorrect to say that “baby parts” were at issue, because the medical community likes to call unborn babies the “products of conception.” (Or at least part of the medical community: In my experience, the folks conducting ultrasounds use the word “baby” all the time.)
To be sure, people are free to try to change the language by brute force if they want. Sometimes it even works: The word “which” was commonly used restrictively (as in “the game which they are playing”) when the comically overrated Elements of Style announced that this was an error, and nowadays adherence to the rule is a reasonably standard aspect of American English. But our words’ definitions are ultimately decided by the community of English speakers, not just by academia.
“Overwhelmingly, these folks are harmless-if-annoying self-appointed “sticklers” who insist you must not ...start sentences with conjunctions. But ill-founded...”
lol
nicely played, there
We've ruined our language for political purposes.
“Why can’t the English teach their children how to speak? This verbal class distinction by now should be antique!”
Those who use the definition of “prejudice plus power”, will STILL not acknowledge behavior as racism when non-whites have power (like in Zimbabwe and South Africa, or during the Obama Administration). Only whites can be guilty of racism, regardless of circumstances or relative power.
I totally agree with the writers premise that the word ‘racism’ particularly as the Left and MSM use it has been totally bastardized. It is very fluid, ill defined and mainly used as a weapon against whites but I still think the following is not precise enough.
“dislike of people on the basis of race,”
Give me examples?
Put "unfounded" before belief and I think you've got it. If you believe that one race (not necessarily your own) is taller, stronger, faster or smarter than another and can back it up with hard data and statistics, then it is not racism-- it is simply stating a demonstrable fact. When you simply believe this as the foundation of your world view, then it is.
What he describes is more insidious than he suggests. For example, most Americans rightly abhor racism, according to its vernacular definition. What these academics appear to intend is to attach that abhorrence to a new definition of the word that suits their agenda. They continue to redefine it until it has the opposite of its original meaning.
Read 1984. Orwells book is about the control of the upper middle class, what they called the outer party. Those were the ones who were controlled by the inner party (party leaders). While the Prols (undoubtedly short for proletariat) were allowed to do pretty much what they wanted. The idea is that those with a little education, money and status are so worried about loosing it that they can be controlled.
Academia has been attempting to define everything to advance the leftist agenda.
Corrupting the language is but one tool in their arsenal.
Not exactly.
The Left has been deliberately mangling our language for decades. The goal is to prevent from even being speak or write unapproved thoughts.
George Orwell wrote Politics and the English Language in 1946:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
My personal definition of racism, as distinct from prejudice or bigotry, is "the desire to harm or otherwise disadvantage others on the basis of race".
I would also define "hate" as needing an element of "desire to harm", rather than the current usage which regards a simple lack of desire to associate with members of a group as "hate".
I saw the same thing. Made me chuckle.
I'm not willing to put that fine a point on it. I've always seen racism as a feeling of general superiority or inferiority as the case may be.
Absolutely true. One example I use is the word “decimate,” which purists insist means “reduction by one tenth.” And that IS the original Latinate meaning. But its use has expanded to mean “any severe and often brutal reduction.”
The Left believes they can capture the narrative by forcing the rest of us to conform to their semantics. Just say no.
They’re not “gay;” they’re homosexual. They’re not “undocumented immigrants;” they’re “illegal aliens.” They’re not anti-fascists; they ARE the fascists.
Lies take a lot of different forms. Fake rhetoric like this is just another lie.
And “you” are not a woman or man (sans mental defect) you are a cisgendered...
I like your definition much better— that much better captures both what the term should mean and how it is used (as a pejorative).
As per my post #12, the feeling of superiority is not the issue, it is the ACTIONS one takes to PUT others into an inferior position which constitute racism. One can feel superior all he wants, and this is not a moral offense. But it is taking action to shove the other down, and so impose domination, which is morally objectionable. And this domination can also take the form of non-whites indulging in deliberately targeting whites for assault and crime.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Say No to the Language Nazis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.