The Subtle Effects of Definition Changes

Liberal elites change words so that they mean what they want them to mean. This is not new, and certainly not something which cannot be found on the Twitter account of any given conservative grifter. But these types largely focus on the more surface-level news blasted happenings of this: Everyone has seen the change of racism to the fancy new definition of “power plus prejudice” which Tumblrites popularized nearly half a decade ago, many saw the hypocrisy of Newsweek editing an old story which called graduates of Ranger School ‘Rangers’, explicitly so they could blast Senator Tom Cotton for calling himself such after graduating the school, but never serving as such. These examples, while easy fodder for the basic MAGACon, ignore the more dangerous and insidious definition changes which have taken place behind the scenes.

There is probably no example of this better than the sudden, drastic, change to the meaning of ‘natural’. A previous definition of natural would be “something that exists in nature, and, as a result of being superior to other things, will continue to exist in nature”, this has been changed to merely “something that exists in nature”. While it certainly isn’t the first word that has been changed behind the scenes, it may be the most important, as one of the single most important heuristics is “is this natural?” The change of the definition of this word can drastically change a worldview.

“Homosexuality exists in nature, therefore it is natural.” is a line of ‘reasoning’ I’m sure many have heard, often listing at random bugs that exhibit the behavior, although some research has shown that those bugs may simply be too stupid to differentiate males from females. By this new definition of natural, everything can be forced into being natural, if enough people can be convinced to do it. Homosexuality may exist in nature, but it is definitively not something that can continue to exist in nature; aside from the more obvious issues of creating children to carry on the existence of the group, it also causes a breakdown of the family unit which has drastic effects on the group as a whole, and a slew of other problems.

Changing racism to mean what Ivy League liberals want it to mean is annoying, but ultimately changes the world-view of a very small group of people, if anyone at all. Information trumpeted at children and teenagers in school in this fashion goes in one year and out the other. ‘You can make me sit in this seat, and you can make me look at the speaker, but you absolutely cannot make me care about what they say’ has been an attitude adopted by many students; it is almost hilarious watching the stoner bugmen attempt to blast information at children in the exact same format as the drug PSA’s which failed to convince them as students. Because of this, in a household with competent parents, this aggressive indoctrination attempt with Critical Theory and other issues is an annoyance, not a true threat.

Changing the meaning of words in such a way that the child is unaware of the original meaning, not told “this old meaning is wrong and racist and …”, but just what the new definition is, as if it was always this way, is the real danger. How many times as a kid did you go to tell your parents something you had observed or been told only to be told that it wasn’t actually true? I was convinced for a time when I was young (roughly six, if memory serves) that whenever I wasn’t manually breathing, I simply wasn’t breathing. It just made sense to my young mind, until I told my Mom that and she told me my body was just breathing for me. When I was young I pronounced “Sixth” like “Sick-th”; no one ever caught it. I still pronounce it like that when I’m not paying attention.

These are very little things, it doesn’t really matter that I pronounce one word slightly wrong, which most people don’t even notice to begin with; nor would it have mattered much if I had gone on believing that I wasn’t breathing automatically, it might have been embarrassing if I had been corrected later on as an adult, assuming I still hadn’t figured it out, but it wouldn’t have changed anything.

The possibility that words can simply be changed, and taught to children as the only definition, should be terrifying to parents, because where would the occasion for this to be caught during their childhood when their entire worldview is being shaped? How can a parent tell their children that things are morally wrong, unnatural, when the simple fact of their existence makes them natural in the definition that the child has known their entire life?

3 Comments Add yours

  1. bluecat57 says:

    When did dinosaurs stop being grey?
    “The Marketing of Evil”. Find and read the book.


  2. stallard0 says:

    I would look more at the presuppositions that make “natural” imply “morally acceptable/good.” Liberals can argue all day not merely about the incidence of sodomy in animals but invent just-so stories that explain its utility and purpose (though they shrink away from that field of “science” the second it asks questions about sexual dimorphism and such), which makes arguments predicated on that at the very least very controvertible. More important is the understanding that nature itself is fallen in this world, the sexual habits of baboons being as sure a guide of morality as the incredible predilection toward cannibalism displayed in many animals, and of course the specific revelation that sodomy is abominable.

    The same goes for racism: it is one thing to stand with the Boomers and cry until they’re blue in the face that this frame isn’t the one we signed onto in the 60s or the 90s, yet another to actually challenge both the liberal dogmas that make it the most heinous, unpardonable sin, and the historical narrative carved around this. The best remedy we have against racism is to actually challenge the Mohist idea that it is morally imperative to care about people equally regardless of their relation to you, as though we should worry about people starving thousands of miles away like they are family.

    Either way, it is our duty to inculcate our worldview in children, and discredit the one our masters want to instill in them instead. The worst thing we can do is try to cast our beliefs in an incompatible liberal framework and then act shocked that people see our opponent’s positions as more consistent and sensible.


  3. muunyayo says:

    Reblogged this on Muunyayo .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s