[Drjones]

Based on readings I have to do for my "Ethic America" class (read: white people are the devil 101) and other liberal writings, I have come to the conclusion that the left is unneccesarily wordy.

They use unnecessarily long, obscure words, and take eight pages to say what could otherwise be said in a few paragraphs.

They also excel at being vague. (Which, as noted below, probably serves a purpose)

Or maybe their wordiness has a purpose; to make themselves sound intelligent at first glance, knowing that the average person is a lazy reader and won't bother to really read and think things through.

This is a trend I see often.

Any thoughts?

[Blackhawk]

Just these thoughts for now:

When everybody's on the same page, the number of words is inversely proportional to the value of the message.

The purpose of words before the message is just to get everybody on the same page.

"Terse" is not a pejorative.

[Pendragon]

They seem to attack the language as much as out way of life.

The ultimate goal seems to be (to paraphrase Orwell) that Politically Incorrect Thoughts, insofar as thought relies on language, will be impossible.

Coming up with new terms and new usages of words allows them to essentially chose the battle ground and use our subconcious associations against us.

It used to be that people of good taste were "discriminating" but that word has a taint now.

Also note the term that the antis are trying to bring into common use: "hidden guns". The term "concealed weapon" has a certain connotation - among them is that you can get a license and practice "legitimate" carry of a concealed weapon.

To use the word "hidden" brings the association that we "have something to hide" and of course, we all know that "innocent people have nothing to hide".

Rush is right, we are losing the language.

[Drjones]

Pendragon:

Hmmmm...so that's what Michael Savage and others refer to when they talk about how the left is destroying our language in addition to everything else......

:cuss: :cuss:

:fire:

[Pendragon]

Yes, I think this is what they mean.

There are some other reasons they like to come up with new ways of phrasing things:

1. It helps them know who is "on their team". We have a lot of code words here that if we saw people using them in another forum, we would probably pickup up on the fact that they may be "one of us".

2. It is very disarming in a debate to change the terms used to describe something. For example - "Gun Control" is going to fall further into disuse by the left. The word "control" has negative connotations and they know it. They prefer "Gun Safety" because after all, who can oppose "Gun Safety"? Of course, everyone is for "Gun Safety" but they will then set about to achieve it on their terms. This is essential because many of the next steps will be telling you that you cannot keep a gun in ready condition - they will pass "Gun Safety" and require that you adhere to strick "safe storage" requirements.

3. Changing the terminology can make people think you have new ideas. It can make you seem fresh and innovative. They will continue to call themselves "progressives" (after all, who can be against "progress"?) and they will continue to argue for "Gun Safety" and "Social Justice" (Just Socialism).

Etc.

[CZ-75]

Read "Prof." Cornell West, late of Harvard, I believe, if you want to read the most contrived bunch of pseudo-intellectual horsesh_t you ever laid eyes on.

I read a "National Review" article a year or two back regarding this very same self-aggrandizing (and obfuscating) verbosity from leftists. Wish I remembered more about it.

[M67]

I'm really glad you specified "wordy". For a moment there I thought it was simply a question of numbers. If "more words" meant "further to the left", our friend Blackhawk would be about a mile to the left of Lenin! :D

[Waitone]

Three points.

1>Those who control the language control the culture.

2>Secret societies have always used codes, words, and definitions to conceal their true objective. If you doubt me just find a gung-ho, NEA card totin' educrat and attempt to carry on an intelligent conversation about the goals of a public education. You will quickly see the educrat lapse into edu-speak and since you are not part of that secret society you will not know the meaning of the words. Meaningful communication becomes impossible.

3>Language is also a verification that the acolyte has bought into the belief system of the secret society.

The danger to Joe and Martha Sixpack is when #2 does #1. #3 is an unobtrusive means for members of secret societies to identify themselves to each other. Secret knowledge is assumed to be superior knowledge.

[geekWithA.45]

Now, I don't want to shoot down all of academia, because the hard sciences serve us well, and the soft sciences can also be valuable and instructive.

That being said....

At the higher levels of academia, the principles award each other points for their ability to manipulate symbols according to an arcane ruleset.

At a certain point, the semantic payload departs reality and becomes empty and meaningless, and the entire thing becomes an excercise in mental masturbation.


And that is why I bailed my Phd program, and proudly bear the title Engineer.

[Standing Wolf]

It's easier to lie to people who are confused than those who understand what you're actually saying.

[Billll]

It's not just the left. The ability to write 10 pages about nothing will get you a long ways in the liberal arts, which admittedly is a pretty leftist place. The ability to state a problem clearly, and propose a solution in one paragraph will serve you well in Engineering or business school.

[El Tejon]

Doc, you have no idea how right you are. I suggest George Orwell's "1984" and Balint Vazsonyi's "America's 30 Years War" and report back.

[Destructo6]

Boy am I glad you intro'd this.

I've been reading, "The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling" for my Middle East class and it's unreal. It repeats the same points over and over, with only slight variations. So, it uses 158 pages to explain something that should have only taken 20-30.

The number of made-up words is astonishing.

[MeekandMild]

Wow, first time I've checked on this place in over a month and what an interesting thread. :) Some random thoughts on the subject:


First of all liberals often have a disorder of thought, with a tendancy to over-abstract. They don't get down to concretes because many of them can't. They build their theories based on magical thinking, which is the sort of thought that a five year old uses to explain things he can't comprehend. Analytical thought is foreign to liberals. Ever wonder why you don't see too many liberal engineers and math teachers?


One word you guys are looking for is "Shibboleth", which means is a "code word that is used to identify friend from foe". Another is "Deconstruction", which was originally meant to be a method to critique literature from the perspective of marxist-leninist dielectic, but which has come to be a general tool for trying to confuse and befuddle the rest of the world.


Deconstruction, in the words of Chip Morningstar: Afterward, however, I was left with a sense that I should try to actually understand what these people were saying, really. I figured that one of three cases must apply. It could be that there was truly some content there of value, once you learned the lingo. If this was the case, then I wanted to know what it was. On the other hand, perhaps there was actually content there but it was bogus (my working hypothesis), in which case I wanted to be able to respond to it credibly. On the third hand, maybe there was no content there after all, in which case I wanted to be able to write these clowns off without feeling guilty that I hadn't given them due consideration.

From Chip's essay on How to Deconstruct Almost Anything (http://www.dourish.com/goodies/decon.html)

[Zander]

The left has mastered controlling the lexicon.

From "Saturday Night Special" to "pre-ban" to "assault weapon" to "ballistic fingerprinting", they define the political argument by injecting their manufactured terms.

Sadly, we follow along, expecting that we can counter their efforts by complaining that such PC definitions aren't really accurate.

Too late...by the time the sheeple have adopted a given term, we're reduced to fighting a losing battle.

Offense, not defense, is our only recourse...

[ahadams]

The point here, of course, is to not allow the other side to dominate the use of language. Some things are fairly easy: never say "gay" say "homosexual". this is especially true when talking to a homosexual or debating a strong defender of the homosexual life style. Never say "pro choice" always say either "proabortion" (preferable) or "a womans legal right to choose to kill her unborn child" (even better but generally makes them go ballistic immediately). Never say "gun safety" in any context other than the three basic rules. Always talk about the fundamental human right of self defense - liberals don't know how to respond to that one.

Oh, and if you end up talking to some educrat about "whole language" (or rather what the NEA tries to make people thing is whole language) get a hold of someone like yours truly who got an M.Ed. in it 10 years ago before the NEA got hold of it. REAL Whole Language instruction includes phonics and hard science skills. argh! don't get me started.

Arlin H. Adams M. Ed. Marymount '93
Pre-K through 8 (Whole Language)
[and no I don't work in it - the disabled vet thing again....]

Three basic rules of firearms safety:
treat every gun as loaded.
always point your gun in a safe direction.
keep your finger off the trigger until you have your sights on the target.

[nualle]

Rand's Atlas Shrugged had about enough material for a good, tight 120-page novella.

[roscoe]

And, despite his contempt for verbosity, and support of RKBA, Orwell was about as leftish as you could get without falling over.

[Zander]

And, despite his contempt for verbosity, and support of RKBA, Orwell was about as leftish as you could get without falling over.Herein lies the difference between the propagandists and sophists who call themselves "progressives" [in point of fact, modern-day liberals] and those of us who are willing to accept the truth:

Orwell was accurate...disturbingly so. It matters little that his political bent was distinctly left-of-center.

[CZ-75]

Rand's Atlas Shrugged had about enough material for a good, tight 120-page novella.

I think John Galt's radio broadcast speech alone is 120 pages (facetious).

That's the only part of the book I didn't read. Save the preaching for Sunday.

[Airwolf]

A favorite of mine on the subject...


In all major socializing forces you will find an underlying movement to gain and maintain power through the use of words. From witch doctor to priest to bureaucrat it is all the same. A governed populace must be conditioned to accept power-words as actual things, to confuse the symbolized system with the tangible universe. In the maintenance of such a power structure, certain symbols are kept out of the reach of common understanding--symbols such as those dealing with economic manipulation or those which define the local interpretation of sanity. Symbol-secrecy of this form leads to the development of fragmented sub-languages, each being a signal that its users are accumulating some form of power. With this insight into a power process, our Imperial Security Force must be ever alert to the formation of sub-languages.

--Lecture to the Arrakeen War College by The Princess Irulan
--Frank Herbert/Children of Dune

[SIGarmed]

I read somewhere on the net that the term "Saturday Night Special" actually came from the old racist term "nxxxxx town saturday night special". "Saturday night special" is a racist term that is used today by many liberals. This in itself tells you something about those who are talking about banning them. God forbid those people defend themselves.

[CZ-75]

The original "Saturday Night Special" was a large, cheap jack knife, from what I've read.

[Mute]

Not to nitpick, but 4 rules of gun safety:

1. A gun is always loaded
2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
3. Never let the muzzle cover anything you aren't willing to destroy.
4. Be certain of your targets backdrop.

[Boats]

This debate over symbolism and truth goes all the way back to Plato's Allegory of the Cave if not further.

For all of those who say leftists can't think, I'd second the nomination of George Orwell as a thinking leftist, but he also had the moral courage to skewer some previously held fondness for socialism/communism in Animal Farm. That moral courage to engage in self-criticism is distinctly lacking across the entire political spectrum today. Another eloquent leftist was Eugene Debs. Never be too quick to write off your ideological opponents because a few of them have broad appeal and substance amidst a sea of mush-headed crap from "overeducated" whiners.

Many admire Noam Chomsky, but I do think he is the most evolved leftist pseudointellectual out there today. Gore Vidal is a close second. Both are still masters of shaping language to make their points seem unassailable, and thus bear some watching as they are sort of influential in certain circles.

I have a more general distrust. Rather than merely keep an eye on wordy leftists, I am generally wary of "elites" of all political stripes. These people are almost always self-selected, and therein lies the danger of their supposed leadership--it is almost always nine parts ego and next to no reluctance.

Sorry for being a wordy conservative here.

[Drjones]

I have a more general distrust. Rather than merely keep an eye on wordy leftists, I am generally wary of "elites" of all political stripes. These people are almost always self-selected, and therein lies the danger of their supposed leadership--it is almost always nine parts ego and next to no reluctance.

You are totally right.

I have just noticed this disgusting, grossly verbose babble mostly from the left.

It is very true however, that people of ALL train of thought will try to gain control through control over language.

As I said, it just seems more prevalent in the left.