Tim Blair: Words mean nothing when those on the left use them in arguments
As part of their decades-long campaign to shame conservatives into silence, the Left keep inventing creative new ways to pretend they’ve been gravely offended, writes Tim Blair.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
It’s easy to win an argument if you’re a leftist. All you need to do is change the rules of language as you go.
Plenty of allies will assist in this slippery enterprise. For example, then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard famously claimed in 2012 that Liberal leader Tony Abbott hated women.
“The leader of the opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office,” Gillard railed in parliament.
“Well, I hope the leader of the opposition has got a piece of paper and he’s writing out his resignation.
“Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives. He needs a mirror.“
At the time, misogyny was defined as a hatred of women.
MORE NEWS
‘Something or Other’ Happens in Paris
This seemed an unfair accusation to level against Abbott, whose mother, wife, daughters, sister and female colleagues have never known him to exhibit any gender-specific loathing.
So the Macquarie Dictionary stepped in to help, softening the meaning of “misogyny” to now indicate a mere implication of “prejudice” against women.
“Gillard‘s critics no longer have semantics on their side,” the Guardian’s Lizzy Davies gloated. See? It’s just that easy.
A similar politically-motivated alteration recently occurred in the US.
During her confirmation hearings earlier this month, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said that she has “never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference”.
“Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent,” Barrett concluded.
Readers unfamiliar with this issue are invited to detect any problem with Barrett’s words. It’s quite a challenge, because there is no problem. None at all.
But Barrett is a conservative and was nominated by US President Donald Trump, so a problem had to be invented.
Mazie Hirono, a Democrat senator from Hawaii, did just that.
“Not once, but twice, you used the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community,” she reprimanded Barratt.
“And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term.“
Really? How so? And since when?
According to Hirono, the term “sexual preference” is “used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not”.
But according to most people, and almost every dictionary, “sexual preference” just means “sexual preference”.
Immediately after Hirono’s outburst, however, Merriam-Webster updated its own dictionary so as to strengthen the case against Barrett – exactly as the Macquarie Dictionary had previously assisted Julia Gillard.
Their new definition reads: “The term ‘sexual preference’ as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to.”
Merriam-Webster editor-at-large Peter Sokolowski claimed the change was just a matter of routine.
“Our scheduled updates, which add new words and also add new definitions, usage guidance, and example sentences to existing dictionary entries, take place several times per year,” he said.
“From time to time, we release one or some of these scheduled changes early when a word or set of words is getting extra attention.”
Or when it is politically helpful.
But the cultural left doesn’t stop at changing definitions.
They’ll also change words and phrases, rebranding various unpopular commie concepts so those abominations may be more easily marketed.
That’s why “socialism” became “social justice”, “global warming” became “climate change”, “East Germany” became “Victoria” and “advanced confinement-grade dementia” became “Joe Biden”.
It’s also why “riots” became “peaceful protests” and “violent Marxist stormtroopers” became “Black Lives Matter”.
Words mean nothing to these people, except as shields or weapons. That’s “progressives” for you.
Well, let’s try a few redefinitions of our own, then.
“Dan” presently refers to a level of proficiency in martial arts. Given the Victorian experience, it could be changed to describe any form of unjustified and repressive authoritarianism. Fort example:
“Tracey can’t be here tonight. She got danned yesterday for driving to the shops. Her trial is in May.”
“Woke” is definitely due for a slight alteration:
“Did you hear Sebastian woking last night about how we’ve all got to take a knee before the Wallabies game? God, he’s such a woker sometimes.”
A British-born friend marvels at the fact that every Australian pub has someone hilarious in it, but our comedy clubs never do. He’s evidently unaware of how the meanings of “comedy” and “comedian” have altered over the years.
They now refer to politics:
“Darren isn’t as funny as he used to be. What’s up with that?”
“Oh, he went into comedy. He’s now a Queensland state Labor MP.”
The word “independent” has come to be, in media terms, a synonym for holy and decent. During that process, the word has lost its precision. In fact, it’s been inverted.
We therefore end up with this absurdity: the ABC is hailed by leftists as an independent media outlet while being completely, 100 per cent dependent on your taxes.
In the same way, we may hear leftists complaining next week about the “death of democracy” in the US — following an election.
Stand by for further linguistic mutations. Within a year or so, maybe four or five harmless words in this column alone will be deemed unacceptable.
Place your bets. Before, of course, the implicit encouragement of gambling is outlawed.