An article sampling how some words used today by SJWs have been redefined from a more positive sense to a negative one which supports victim hood. The article then asks:
What Has Happened to Language?
This tiny vocabulary sampling reflects another recent epidemic of victimhood, as the English language is further squeezed and massaged to create reality from fantasy.
First, over a half-century of institutionalized equal opportunity has not led to an equality of result. Particular self-identified groups feel collectively that they are less well off than others and are bewildered that this is still possible, since they can point to no law or custom that precludes their opportunity by race, class, or gender. Therefore, inventing a vocabulary of grievances is far more effective in gaining concessions than self-criticism and self-reliance are in winning parity.
Second, in an affluent, leisured and postmodern society of $300 Jordan-label sneakers that sell out in hours, big-screen televisions at Walmart that become prizes for warring consumers on Black Friday, and over 50% of the population exempt from income taxes, it is becoming harder to define, in the material sense, oppression-driven victimhood. In such a world, even multi-billionaire Oprah has difficulty finding discrimination and so becomes reduced to whining about a perceived snub in a Swiss boutique that sells six-figure purses. Language is pressed into service to create victims where there are few, but where many are sorely needed, psychologically — and on the chance such a prized status might lead to a profitable trajectory otherwise impossible by passé notions of work and achievement.
Point one – this is what “1984” talked about. The subversion of language to fit an ideology or agenda. The SJWs of today do have a difficult job of assigning blame, so they’re twisted words to enable that. “Privilege”, which used to be a positive word, is now coupled with “white” in a decidedly negative way. The entire point, of course, is to “gain concessions” by producing guilt in the target audience. In this way they remain the “victim” class and it is the responsibility of the victimizers to subsidize or ensure advantage in life to the “victims”. It’s one of the reasons we see so many grievance movements popping up now … it works.
The second point – as we’ve all been made aware, our “poor” live at a level that would be considered middle class in Europe (speaking of “privilege”). But the world evolved now where equality in opportunity, at least in Western countries, isn’t at all hard to find. But, of course, that means “work and achievement”. Why do that when you can “suffer” as a “victim” and be forever subsidized in some way or another in the name of “equality” or whatever “ism” you prefer. That shaming and guilt production produces rewards from those who buy into the guilt and shame. And often they are politicians who are quite happy to use your money to assuage this assumed guilt. And, as we all know, we get less of the behavior we punish and more of that which we reward.
Guess which form of behavior we’re getting now, and why?
I’m always amused when the left gets a little frustrated. Somewhere in the “dance” that takes place with the give and take they often let their mask slip and let the inner beast out.
Many times its just a result of not getting their way. For instance, New Jersey. Known for its hardball politics, when the Democratic President of the Senate didn’t get consulted by the governor concerning the budget after claiming to have worked with Governor Christie on the parts of the budget together (obviously expecting political payback for doing so) the Governor apparently held to principle and using the power vested in him by the NJ Constitution used the line item veto to further “prune” the state budget. Obviously his pruning took out some of the funding for programs that Sen. Sweeney felt he’d saved by cooperating previously. Since that wasn’t the case, Sweeney lost his cool, went personal and launched a full ad hominem attack.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney went to bed furious Thursday night after reviewing the governor’s line-item veto of the state budget.
He woke up Friday morning even angrier.
"This is all about him being a bully and a punk," he said in an interview Friday.
"I wanted to punch him in his head."
I’ve always been of the opinion that the punk is the one who ends up attacking like that, suggesting violence, etc. Now obviously you can argue that the politics of the past gave Sweeney the impression that cooperation would yield compromise. Give a little on his side, get a little for his side. But the belief that he’d get that was just that – a belief. Obviously Christie felt he’d been clear about what his goals were and how he planned on accomplishing them. Sweeney just as obviously thought he’d gotten around that by early cooperation.
We often hear it said of Barack Obama that he is doing exactly what he said he’d do and we shouldn’t be surprised. Apparently that argument is void in New Jersey. Senate President Sweeney expects the old way of doing things – you know the way that has them in deep financial trouble – to prevail over the new way, i.e. a principled approach to running government and paying off the debt. Obviously the guy who is doing what he said he’d do doesn’t agree with Sweeney.
What a punch in the head, huh?
The other example is sort of just the mask slipping all by itself. A self-inflicted wound so to speak -and many times it’s on Twitter *cough*Wienergate*cough*. For instance the Communications Director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party supposedly celebrating, one assumes, the “birthday” of Medicare.
Now there are a number of ways one could do that in 142 characters. And an abundance of them would be perfectly acceptable, show one’s support for the program (if one supports it) and relay why the person writing the Tweet supports said program. That’s if you’re not an idiot. And that’s exactly what Graeme Zielinski comes across as in his Tweet:
Nice to see Democrats in such fine form in the “civility” department. Perhaps now we can see a cessation of all the hypocritical and condescending lectures from them about the need for civility in politics, huh?