“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

You know what's terrifying? I've seen the first line of this quote used straight, by otherwise seemingly intelligent people, to shut down someone who rightfully pointed they're being manipulative with words.

Yes, language is evolving, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. But the idea that you can use words in whichever way you want, and any misunderstanding is the listener's problem, is just shitting at the idea of communication, and nothing but a thinly veiled power grab.

People are slowly coming to the realisation that there is no "open dialogue", no "marketplace of ideas". You've been had.

The reality is that when you're in power, you can use words in whichever way you want. This is what power means. Only now has is become so obvious that people can't help but notice.

The marketplace of ideas is a nobel and ideal state. However, its weakness shows in a low trust culture - those like Kendi will exploit it to initially be heard then discard it once they’re in power.

Without strict controls over who is and isn’t allowed in our culture we’re left with a “at your feet or at your throat” predicament. Subversive individuals are death to a culture (the thing Popper was referring to in the paradox of tolerance - you have to draw the line at life or death, not simply because you disagree). Trust is everything.

Or to put it in different terms: democracy can AT BEST work somewhat ok in a homogenous high-IQ population. As soon as the constituency becomes multi-ethnic, people stop voting for "whats best" and start voting "which group is favoured". This is not a theory but a historical observation.

Popper was an idiot and his "Paradox Of Tolerance" can only lead to tolerance becoming the only permissible value and therefore decline, since tolerance is the absence of values. His university colleagues held him in such disregard that they threatened to quit unless he was cast out. Truly the patron saint of midwits and leftist.

Right, it's not hard to demonstrate how absurd that idea is. There was an xkcd that nailed this - https://xkcd.com/1860/

Look at popular media. "who is master" is everything. Who is up and who is down. Who dominates and who submits.

It's a topic very dear to our hairy little monkey hearts.

Ibram X. Kendi and similar figures' redefinition of racism is the obvious example that comes to mind. I'd love to hear other examples, I'm struggling to think of them.

Even this list itself shows such an example. It calls out the expression "calling a spade a spade" as problematic, and the explanation given is "Although the term has its origins in Greek literature, the subsequent negative connotations with the word "spade" means that the phrase should be used with caution or not at all.". So they are inventing some redefinition of the phrase that could be problematic in order to jettison it.

Note: as a non-native speaker, I have no idea what is problematic about the word "spade". I have only ever seen it to mean either a tool for digging or a type of sword, but I will take them at their word that it does have some other meaning.

As a native speaker, I am also unaware of any other meaning.

Spade is a rather dated term for a black person, historically from Harlem.

This is why lists like this exist. I’m aware of the term and it’s derogatory use. I can see how when used in a professional context it could be harmful. But many people might not be aware, so this list helps build awareness.

I've encountered the term 'spade' in the fetish community in reference to interracial cuckolding fantasies. Maybe that's it.

Or maybe it's that it's homophonous with 'spayed', language resists easy categorization.

Misogyny and misandry (originally meant a hatred of *men), now it includes any perceived slight, or lack of respect.

Fauci changing the definition of "gain of function" research after it was banned so he could claim he wasn't funding it, when he clearly was under the old definition from the previous year is probably the most blatant recent use of this tactic.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-sen...

"Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of 'a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.'

On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses 'enhanced potential pandemic pathogen' research, which it defined as 'research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.'"

The research funded was forbidden under the old definition, and so they just changed the definition after they did the research.

That sounds like a scummy tactic to dismiss someone's argument based on their choice of words. I'm so glad debating isn't a thing much.