Ever repeated a word until it loses its meaning, until you are unsure if it is a word at all? It is quite interesting in my opinion as it shows that the value we attribute to a word is malleable and once the word loses meaning it no longer carries the emotional weighting that it may have once held. Well, until the effect of the experiment wears-off and the value returns.
Perhaps this is what is happening with a whole range of subjects. Through repeated and incorrect usage, terms can be hijacked and what may have once been used as a potent argument for or against something, has been diluted down into a largely flaccid meaning that carries no real value.
Last night I wrote a post about Stalking which in my opinion is a very serious matter however, through the age of the internet has become severely diluted. Stalking has become a term that implies scrolling through someone's social feed on Facebook or Instagram and similar, and being labelled a 'stalker' is more of a joke between friends.
This type of dilution of terms takes away the element of danger in the word and through this, the understanding of the concept itself. Those that have to deal daily with the ramifications of actual stalking cases likely hold no illusion as to the actual meaning and probably understand the dangers in the dilution.
This isn't the only area however and there are a number of other prominent hijacks through dilution that are current in our society.
One that just came up very recently was in a chat room where a user called me a fascist and referenced me as the Fuhrer. This was in a private room after he was asked not to discuss something and then he complained about his rights to speak and how he is tired of being 'told' what he can talk about. I went on to explain the position.
The confusion lays in his understanding of his rights. He was well able to speak but, as I have said before, there are also the rights of reaction and in a private chat room, that may mean being muted or thrown out. He also has no right to be listened to yet consistently complains that he gets ignored, his voice is not heard.
This has nothing to do with fascism however as that is a style of totalitarian government where a governmental authority dictates and often violently enforces order. A fascist is someone that follows the philosophy and supports its actions. The reference to the Fuhrer is obviously his feelings that I was acting like a Nazi. Perhaps people should get reacquainted with history and understand what the Nazis actually did and perhaps they would realise that their feelings on the matter in most places they use the term, are invalid.
Racism is another example that has seen a sharp dilution where it is now being used for anyone that raises questions concerning anything race related, especially if the potential answer to the question may imply that there are differences between various races.
This dilution has meant that rather than people having a better understanding of the physical and social makeups of society, important conversations are not happening because to broach the subject it to get labelled a racist. Throughout my life, I have experienced my fair share of racism and what people are claiming today as racist rarely fits the bill.
Another issue is the climate change arguments for or against. In this case, the topic hasn't only been diluted through FUD, it has been switched from a discussion about pollution. A discussion that 30 odd years ago had nothing to do with global warming, it had to do with clean air and water.
There is unlikely a person on earth that would prefer more pollution in their immediate environment yet will fight tooth and nail over the legitimacy of climate change. They have lost the sight of reality as pollution is the real issue at hand. The interesting thing for me is that focusing on pollution would have the best chance of affecting climate change if it is real, and if it is not or we can't stop it, we will still have cleaner air and water to breathe and drink and benefit from a cleaner experience.
From my view, the reason that these terms are being diluted is that we are actually very poor students of history and we need to actually experience things in order to understand. Most people that are raising their voices across these types of topics have rarely lived in them yet, believe they know what they are.
It isn't until one has feared for their safety through unwanted attention that the term Stalker returns to its original weighting. It isn't until one lives under the extreme oppression of a totalitarian government that one can understand Fascism. It is not until one truly experiences deep levels of Racism that the term carries true weight. And in the case of Pollution, it seems that it is not until one is choking on the air and unable to swallow the water that energy is put into understanding the reality of the situation.
The solution to this in my view is always the same and that is to take responsibility for our ourselves and be interested enough to investigate who we are and how we act and see if our beliefs and expectations are congruent with reality. I expect very few to ever take this approach though as what most really crave is, social validation for their beliefs.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Yes! Yes! Yes! I feel like I come across many discussions where this happens and it is frustrating to see people defend their right to free speech but they have no interest in doing research or understanding what they are really saying, and simply bundling groups into one term that fits their vague idea but don't know the historical origin, only to make the argument sound more... "intense". I totally get the humor sometimes, but humor requires a certain finesse. Words are powerful and we should use them well. Also I appreciate that you bring up the subject of "right to reaction", we should probably be more aware of how people receive our comments and not take their reactions as an attack, rather an opportunity to understand other perspectives and strengthen relationships. Can't always be my way or the highway since each person we deal with is a whole different universe with ideas and experiences unlike any other's.
I've thought about this issue many times and I think it's also unfair to just blame the "offender". I think as a society we have set up a standard of harsh judgement and our reaction tends to be an unnecessary mockery of the ignorance of people. We immediately treat someone as a "lesser being" when they do not show broad knowledge, and I guess the natural reaction to that is to get defensive. The issue stops being the initial argument, and turns into this need to prove that i'm not stupid/you're stupid defensive stand. What do you think?
I really like this post. I'm sharing everywhere. (even in the unmentionable other social medias).
You are right, there are many aspects at play here and most people do not actually take the time to consider many, barely even the parts that directly effect themselves.
Lately I have encountered a whole range of people that are very one-sided in their approach across these things. It seems that the people that are the most offended and cry foul are also the ones that are the least willing to listen to the perspectives of others and jump headlong into diatribe and personal attacks.
Knowledge by definition is always limited and in my opinion, one can learn a lot from people that are not 'knowledgeable' in an area. In fact, if looking to 'teach' someone, you need to know what they don't know so listening is critical, including listening to their errors.
Not just to correct mind you, but to learn. There is a high value in errors and it can better develop one's strategies to make less in the future and strengthen current positions.
In regards to humour... thanks for taking the time and providing the wall of text ;)
It is always nice to see you Val.
Totally agree.
hahhahha that's the only wall building you'll see me supporting!!
This exactly what I’ve been harping on for years. It’s the product of the “politically correct” environment that’s been foisted upon us.
They use it to suppress free speech. They also use it now to destroy any vestige of history or heritage that doesn’t fit their views.
As mentioned above, the nazis and soviets started by doing this...
It is amazing at how often those claiming to fight for something are actually the ones enacting it upon others. I think the suppression came before that even, they just took it to a whole new level.
hey Tarazkp! I dig the thoughtful observation about words losing their meaning. About five years ago I started making fun of the word 'Authentic', it seemed to me like it was starting to get used by marketing systems. My GF didn't understand why I was harshing on them so much...fast forward five years, and I feel like Authentic is almost completely dead.
So...funny tidbit. Did you know that there's a small culture in highland Guatemala called the Tzutujil that has structured their very old traditions in such a way to solve this? They have 'word churn' built in...here's how it works.
People's names are made up from words...just like ours.Wobbly Leaf or Burning Light Flows Over Water...whenever somebody dies, their name dies with them. And nobody else can speak the words that comprised their name. Instead, everyone has to invent new words, or recombine others to speak about the things they want to speak about. And the language has to keep changing :P
Just thought you might appreciate hearing that we aren't the only people who have felt frustrated about such things !
Wow, that is really interesting. I wonder what happens across generations and how quickly words are 'forgotten' and reused.
All words come and go as the word itself is not the thing but, the problem I have is that very 'important' words are being hijacked knowingly to manipulate the narratives. Control the story, control the masses.
Yeah, I agree with you there...it's the oldest technology in the book.
Indeed it is.
A very interesting observation. However, rather than people being ignorant of history, this dilution of the meaning of terms such as a racist, nazi or stalker might have more to do with changing associations with time.
We may have moved from the forms which originally symbolised these words, but since such extremities are rare in the world today, we tend to think of them lightly.
For example, the terror that was attached to the word 'Nazi' is seldom treated with the aura of despicability and dread as it was 50 years ago - during the times Nazism was actually prominent. Modern users of the term know the word and understand what it stood for but can't identify with the level of feeling our forefathers, who actually lived and witnessed the terror nazism unfolded, felt firsthand - therefore the meaning of the word no longer brings forth that accompanying feeling that our forefathers felt and perhaps which is why modern day people (probably the younger generation) tend to use that word too loosely. And that's what is happening with a lot of words.
To continue on a little, the issue is that the practices of many of these flawed philosophies are rising again at an increasing rate. Perhaps it is because of the dilution of the term through a lack of understanding of the reality of what they stood for. History repeats for reasons.
How I see it is that if words such as these are allowed to be diluted, when the reality of the past arrives again, people will not recognise it for what it is and think it is something new when in actual fact it is just a reiteration we no longer have a word for.
It would have been good if you went into more details about the issues you raised. What was the nature of the conversation where you were called a racist or a fascist. Also, it would have been good to define what these things are and give concrete examples and measure them against what you said when you were accused of being a racist/fascist and see how accurate these accusations were. I am not saying find a rubric, but it would be good to get more specifics.
The details of the discussion are irrelevant to the article, I was never accused of racism but was called a fascist which based on the meaning of the word is categorically wrong and therefore inaccurate at all levels of the meaning.
Why is it irrelevant?
The topic of discussion and the context of its location have no bearing on the labelling that was delivered. It doesn't matter what the topic is, the words used are inappropriate for the situation and in such a setting are severely misused which is what the article is about. If I wanted to write an article about the topic discussed itself, I would have.
I think it is quite plain to see that the usage of such terms which if socially acceptable to be used in such places in today's world, have fundamentally changed their meaning. Just asking me to justify my actions to see the 'accuracy' of their usage is testament to the fact that most no longer understand what actions have led to the labels carrying such weight in the past. This is the dilution.
My musician friends and I joke about the dilution of various music related term. Gig, show, burning, nailed it, riffing... awesome. Some times I tell my friends in a sarcastic tone, "yeah, its awesome in a 2017 way."
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPanother eloquent dissection of the problems in the present day of politic correctness - sorry I mean insanity.
My post , in the same ballpark, from a different angle ( and by no means as eloquent as your good self).
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/dealing-with-grown-up-children