Language. Used for Communication, or Manipulation?
The purpose of language is communication. We use it to convey an idea from one mind to another. When I was going for my first tattoo, I had a picture in my head of what I wanted. Language was the vehicle I had to use to communicate what I wanted. After some back and forth, my tattoo artist finally understood what I wanted. What I saw on my arm was what I had in my mind’s eye.
Some people, however, do not use language to communicate; they use it to manipulate. They’ll say something which is technically true, but the words are carefully selected to conjure up a different image in your mind. They hide behind a veil of technicality, and when you point this out, they become obtuse and blame you for ‘misunderstanding’ them, despite their misleading intentions.
They’re factual, but not truthful.
If their end goal were to communicate, they would pick a different set of words, ones that produce an accurate representation of what’s happening. But their goal isn’t to communicate; it’s to weasel their way into winning through language.
This is based on what Michael Malice says regarding politicians and institutions, but can also be broadened to individuals.
What I’m trying to demonstrate will become clear with this example.
First, we need to set something aside: the ‘guided missile warheads’ claim. This is false. Think about it, are they really going to use warheads against illegal immigrants? Of course not. You can dismiss it based on how preposterous it is. We now know that it was likely classified as a categorisation error, as the company where ICE made the purchase does not manufacture these types of weapons.
Next: ICE are purchasing chemical weapons. If your fake news alarm is blaring, good on you; you’re right, even though, technically, they are purchasing chemical weapons.
But what do you think of when someone says ‘chemical weapons’? Most would say mustard gas, nerve agents, and some variation of the now-banned substances used in World War 1. Truly horrific stuff. This is what people think of when they hear the term ‘chemical weapons’.
So what were these chemical weapons that ICE purchased?
Oh, it’s tear gas. ICE is purchasing basic crowd control equipment.
When I use language, I use it in a way so that someone’s internal representation of my words matches exactly what I mean to say. In this case, I would say ‘tear gas’, because I’m doing my best to be honest. But these people don’t want to communicate with you honestly; they want to manipulate you. They know when they say ‘chemical weapons’, images of mass killings will flash through your mind - not a single person thinks of tear gas.
What’s the point in saying something technically correct if the person you’re speaking to walks away with a completely different idea of what was true? I don’t care what it definitionally is, I care about what image is created when certain words are used. I use language to communicate, not to manipulate.
Hold on? I didn’t know that JK Rowling rejected the historical fact of Nazi Germany exterminating millions of people in a systemic genocide. This is crazy.
That’s your cue to investigate more.
Does JK Rowling deny the holocaust? Of course not. So, what does she believe?
It seems that she doesn’t think that one singular event happened. I don’t know her reasoning for not believing it, because by all accounts, it did happen. But to call her a holocaust denier? Get real.
In practice, the mental image that ‘holocaust denier’ evokes is one rejecting the fact that millions were killed in a genocide, not that you think a library wasn’t burned. It seems redundant that this needs to be talked about, and usually I wouldn’t. However, this particularly bothers me. It’s not the fact that someone decided to spit this out; people speak nonsense all the time. It’s the fact that so many agree with it when it’s so blatantly dishonest.
Throwing these terms around so haphazardly cheapens them to the point of meaninglessness.
Which begs the question - why?
They’re ideologues.
ICE and JK Rowling are enemies to these people. To the ideologically captured, the ends justify the means. They don’t mind stretching the definition of ‘chemical weapons’ and ‘holocaust denier’ to the point where it snaps under an ounce of scrutiny, because they think it will help them win. If they can successfully convince bystanders that ICE and JKR are evil, it throttles their support. No one wants to defend, or is on the same side as, a holocaust denier.
Instead of winning the war with ideas, they’re trying to win the war with words.
‘ICE purchased tear gas‘ and ‘JK Rowling doesn’t believe the Nazis burned a library’ - these are the words of an honest person, someone whose primary concern is to communicate what’s true, but it doesn’t quite have the same punch as ‘chemical weapons’ or ‘holocaust denier’ does it? That’s why they do it. They use these emotionally loaded terms to create false impressions.
It’s easy to defend ICE purchasing tear gas; it’s impossible to defend them using chemical weapons. They want - no, need to - deceive you with their technical definition, so that they may win by using it.
The good news is that this is an indication that they are losing. They know it, so they are resorting to desperation tactics.
They are relying on you not to look into their claims. The moment you do, you’ll realise how transparently dishonest they are being. We cannot fall for their linguistic tricks. We’re smarter than them.