The disorienting, and dangerous, appropriation of language.

[berg80]

I saw a car strewn with right wing bumper stickers the other day. One of which said "The Patriots are getting upset." The other stickers made it clear the reference was not to the football team. It was to traitors who want to be thought of as patriots. Calling yourself a patriot when in fact you favor insurrection is delusional.....and disorienting. The line from 1984.........
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”......comes to mind. So does MAGA.

From the beginning of Trumpery we were told the pictures we saw of the inauguration did not reflect reality. If you wanted to know what was real you had to listen to an inveterate liar. "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what is happening." Don would have us believe liars are truth tellers. No wonder he spent so much time being interviewed on Faux.

Now he wants us to believe orchestrating a plan to steal the election by having, in part, the VP accept fake slates of electors rather than the ones representing the votes of the people is covered by the 1st A. Huh?

Orwell despised a lot of words. He wrote a whole essay on them in 1946. Titled “Politics and the English Language,” the essay takes aim at all of Orwell’s pet hatreds: excessive use of Latinate instead of Anglo-Saxon words; unwarranted use of the passive voice; mixed metaphors; clichés; and the phrase “not un-,” as in “it is not unlikely that Trump will seek office in 2024 if not barred from doing so.” (Redundant, fumes Orwell. Just say, “It’s likely.”)

But what Orwell is particularly angry about is imprecise language, and language that conceals rather than clarifies. Which, for him, includes most political language. “Political language,” he writes, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

For this reason, Orwell argues, politicians are particularly given to lazy, sloppy rhetoric, filled with meaningless buzzwords and clichés. Political language, he says, muffles the sense of what is being communicated, which is so often indefensible, with an overlay of righteous justification. And as a result, those who get caught up in this style of speech — both its speakers and its listeners — find their ability to think caught and shaped by their impoverished language. They are no longer able to recognize a lie as a lie and a murder as a murder because the language in which they speak is so vague as to allow them to consider a lie an alternative fact and a murder a tragic yet unavoidable accident.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2223319...-english-language-josh-hawley-donald-trump-jr

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/th...ther-works/politics-and-the-english-language/

 

[SeaMajor7]

PROJECTION GASLIGHT THEATRE BULLSHIT

 

[SaxonJackson]

Were the Founding Fathers "delusional" for wanting to break the chains of tyranny? They ended up fighting against a hardcore despot and won. We have them to thank for our Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution? Would you be willing to fight for its preservation? Or do you prefer tyrants who're willing to stomp all over our God-given rights? Bottom line: There are Patriots and there are Cucks!

 

[scruffy]

I saw a car strewn with right wing bumper stickers the other day. One of which said "The Patriots are getting upset." The other stickers made it clear the reference was not to the football team. It was to traitors who want to be thought of as patriots. Calling yourself a patriot when in fact you favor insurrection is delusional.....and disorienting. The line from 1984.........
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”......comes to mind. So does MAGA.

From the beginning of Trumpery we were told the pictures we saw of the inauguration did not reflect reality. If you wanted to know what was real you had to listen to an inveterate liar. "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what is happening." Don would have us believe liars are truth tellers. No wonder he spent so much time being interviewed on Faux.

Now he wants us to believe orchestrating a plan to steal the election by having, in part, the VP accept fake slates of electors rather than the ones representing the votes of the people is covered by the 1st A. Huh?

Orwell despised a lot of words. He wrote a whole essay on them in 1946. Titled “Politics and the English Language,” the essay takes aim at all of Orwell’s pet hatreds: excessive use of Latinate instead of Anglo-Saxon words; unwarranted use of the passive voice; mixed metaphors; clichés; and the phrase “not un-,” as in “it is not unlikely that Trump will seek office in 2024 if not barred from doing so.” (Redundant, fumes Orwell. Just say, “It’s likely.”)

But what Orwell is particularly angry about is imprecise language, and language that conceals rather than clarifies. Which, for him, includes most political language. “Political language,” he writes, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

For this reason, Orwell argues, politicians are particularly given to lazy, sloppy rhetoric, filled with meaningless buzzwords and clichés. Political language, he says, muffles the sense of what is being communicated, which is so often indefensible, with an overlay of righteous justification. And as a result, those who get caught up in this style of speech — both its speakers and its listeners — find their ability to think caught and shaped by their impoverished language. They are no longer able to recognize a lie as a lie and a murder as a murder because the language in which they speak is so vague as to allow them to consider a lie an alternative fact and a murder a tragic yet unavoidable accident.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2223319...-english-language-josh-hawley-donald-trump-jr

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/th...ther-works/politics-and-the-english-language/

Are you shitting me?

Leftards complaining about abuse of language?

Leftards are the WORST abusers of language.

That word "insurrection" is COMPLETELY abusive. It's an outright LIE.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But what Orwell is particularly angry about is imprecise language, and language that conceals rather than clarifies. Which, for him, includes most political language. “Political language,” he writes, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Is "birthing person" and "milk producer" a dangerous, disorienting appropriation of language?

 

[berg80]

Were the Founding Fathers "delusional" for wanting to break the chains of tyranny? They ended up fighting against a hardcore despot and won. We have them to thank for our Constitution. Do you believe in the Constitution? Would you be willing to fight for it preservation? Or do you prefer tyrants who're willing to stomp all over our God-given rights? Bottom line: There are Patriots and there are Cucks!

Few things are more tyrannical in a democracy than trying to thwart the will of the voters by attempting a coup. Then pretending it was an act of patriotism.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Few things are more tyrannical in a democracy than trying to thwart the will of the voters by attempting a coup.

I agree. I, too, don't believe Biden to be a legitimate President. Glad we're on the same page.

 

[berg80]

I agree. I, too, don't believe Biden to be a legitimate President. Glad we're on the same page.

That belief makes you delusional.

 

[22lcidw]

Few things are more tyrannical in a democracy than trying to thwart the will of the voters by attempting a coup. Then pretending it was an act of patriotism.

Who are more of courage in our history? Washington and Franklin, or Pelosi and Schumer?

 

[Michelle420]

I saw a car strewn with right wing bumper stickers the other day. One of which said "The Patriots are getting upset." The other stickers made it clear the reference was not to the football team. It was to traitors who want to be thought of as patriots. Calling yourself a patriot when in fact you favor insurrection is delusional.....and disorienting. The line from 1984.........
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”......comes to mind. So does MAGA.

From the beginning of Trumpery we were told the pictures we saw of the inauguration did not reflect reality. If you wanted to know what was real you had to listen to an inveterate liar. "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what is happening." Don would have us believe liars are truth tellers. No wonder he spent so much time being interviewed on Faux.

Now he wants us to believe orchestrating a plan to steal the election by having, in part, the VP accept fake slates of electors rather than the ones representing the votes of the people is covered by the 1st A. Huh?



https://www.orwellfoundation.com/th...ther-works/politics-and-the-english-language/

Change the name from Trump to Biden, and remember all of his patriots would favor insurrection if Trump was in office and making policies they felt were anti-American. The problem with politics today is no one is honest not even voters.

 

[berg80]

Who are more of courage in our history? Washington and Franklin, or Pelosi and Schumer?

The real aims of Hawley and Trump Jr. — and any number of other conservative figures flinging around the “Orwellian” label in the wake of the storming of the Capitol — are to salvage their reputations after abetting an assault on democratic institutions. Their declared aims are to save democracy. To hide the size of the gap between the two, they have turned, instinctively, to an idiom that is now exhausted.

 

[berg80]

Change the name from Trump to Biden, and remember all of his patriots would favor insurrection if Trump was in office and making policies they felt were anti-American.

There is no evidence for that assertion.

 

[Hellokitty]

"The Patriots are getting upset" bumpersticker...

OMG why do libs have to lie and make up things to go off on a TDS whiney rant?

 

[SaxonJackson]

That belief makes you delusional.

Coming from a delusional person, I guess that means I'm perfectly rational.

 

[martybegan]

I saw a car strewn with right wing bumper stickers the other day. One of which said "The Patriots are getting upset." The other stickers made it clear the reference was not to the football team. It was to traitors who want to be thought of as patriots. Calling yourself a patriot when in fact you favor insurrection is delusional.....and disorienting. The line from 1984.........
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”......comes to mind. So does MAGA.

From the beginning of Trumpery we were told the pictures we saw of the inauguration did not reflect reality. If you wanted to know what was real you had to listen to an inveterate liar. "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what is happening." Don would have us believe liars are truth tellers. No wonder he spent so much time being interviewed on Faux.

Now he wants us to believe orchestrating a plan to steal the election by having, in part, the VP accept fake slates of electors rather than the ones representing the votes of the people is covered by the 1st A. Huh?

Orwell despised a lot of words. He wrote a whole essay on them in 1946. Titled “Politics and the English Language,” the essay takes aim at all of Orwell’s pet hatreds: excessive use of Latinate instead of Anglo-Saxon words; unwarranted use of the passive voice; mixed metaphors; clichés; and the phrase “not un-,” as in “it is not unlikely that Trump will seek office in 2024 if not barred from doing so.” (Redundant, fumes Orwell. Just say, “It’s likely.”)

But what Orwell is particularly angry about is imprecise language, and language that conceals rather than clarifies. Which, for him, includes most political language. “Political language,” he writes, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

For this reason, Orwell argues, politicians are particularly given to lazy, sloppy rhetoric, filled with meaningless buzzwords and clichés. Political language, he says, muffles the sense of what is being communicated, which is so often indefensible, with an overlay of righteous justification. And as a result, those who get caught up in this style of speech — both its speakers and its listeners — find their ability to think caught and shaped by their impoverished language. They are no longer able to recognize a lie as a lie and a murder as a murder because the language in which they speak is so vague as to allow them to consider a lie an alternative fact and a murder a tragic yet unavoidable accident.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2223319...-english-language-josh-hawley-donald-trump-jr

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/th...ther-works/politics-and-the-english-language/

This coming from a side that calls men women, and women egg producers.

 

[berg80]

Coming from a delusional person, I guess that means I'm perfectly rational.

Thanks for that example of a disorienting use of language. It aligns with Kellyanne's effort to get people to believe there can be parallel yet divergent facts.

 

[berg80]

This coming from a side that calls men women, and women egg producers.

It was only a matter of time before deflection was invoked.

 

[Mac1958]

Plenty of language-warping coming at us from both silly ends of the spectrum.

The Left has all its goofy new terminology that we're supposed to follow, like various hyphenations, dozens of genders, and silly shit we're supposed to understand and adopt like "intersectionality" and "cis", and is impossible to take seriously. The Right now communicates almost exclusively in simplistic, paranoid hyperbole and is impossible to take seriously.

We've reached a point at which words essentially mean nothing, thanks to our hardcore ideologues. The rest of us, and it's a large number, just roll our eyes at it all.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Plenty of language-warping coming at us from both silly ends of the spectrum.

The Left has all its goofy new terminology that we're supposed to follow, like various hyphenations, dozens of genders, and silly shit we're supposed to understand and adopt like "intersectionality" and "cis", and is impossible to take seriously. The Right now communicates almost exclusively in simplistic, paranoid hyperbole and is impossible to take seriously.

We've reached a point at which words essentially mean nothing, thanks to our hardcore ideologues. The rest of us, and it's a large number, just roll our eyes at it all.

Hey. Stop speaking in Latin.

 

[Michelle420]

There is no evidence for that assertion.

Sure there is a look at the blm riots dems supported the destruction of local businesses and did nothing. They allowed the racial riots and would allow insurrection no-brainer. You have hated for conservatism and Trump so you want to project things as if the other side wouldn't behave or believe things their leader told them. Both sides do this. You are not unique you are just dishonest in your bitching.