7 7

I have noticed over the years that there is a major play at trying to redefine words in order to control narratives. Two examples of words that are losing their original definitions, are terrorism and Semitic. There was a bombing in an Ontario Indian restaurant a few days ago and they keep mentioning that they don't believe it is terror related. When did bombings ceace to be terrorism? Do terrorists need to be brown now, in order to be considered terrorists? Also the term Semitic used to refer to all Semetic people who speak a Semetic language, which not only includes Hebrew, but languages like Maltese, Aribic and Aramaic among a few others. In its original definition practically any hate or prejudice towards someone of Middle Eastern decent, was antisemitic.

DougDiamond38 4 May 27

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


A living language is always fluid. I lament how the porn industry has usurped so many words.


Lamestream media does that all the time! They also call some guns "assault" guns, bring new definition to the word assault. They did the same to blog. Also their news is skewed.


I do not think this is necessarily deliberate redefinition to control narratives (although that certainly does happen at times). Language evolves naturally, sometimes unfortunately misused words become the commonplace understanding of a term, or meaning entirely inverts.

Random example: "inconvenient" in Middle English meant "inappropriate" or "unseemly" and now it means "causing trouble, difficulties or discomfort". Meaning shifts like this aren't related to a specific agenda, but just to organic evolution of usage.

Terrorism's current meaning is "unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims". So I think saying a bombing is not terrorism isn't saying that it doesn't engender terror or isn't terrifying, but that it is not politically motivated or intended to control political action. On the other hand, if enough people start understanding and using "terrorism" as you are, then the understood meaning will eventually evolve toward "a violent or destructive act that causes people to be terrified or traumatized, especially if performed by persons of color".

I understand that not all Jews are semitic, and not all semitics are Jews, so I've never really understood how "anti-semitic" became equated with "xenophobic or racist concerning Jewish people" but from what I can find about it online this equivalency with "Jew-hatred" has been in place since about 1879 when it was promulgated (ironically, in Germany), in an effort to come up with a scientific-sounding, sanitized alternative to the term Judenhass.


Good point Doug. Another thing that's happening is the blending of a once horrifying (and still horrifying) word like "rape" with a once annoying word like "sexist". They both are certainly bad but now they are viewed by many as the same thing. I believe that's why they had different definitions to begin with.

I here you there. Sexual assault and sexual harassment are more clearly defined, than this whole new sexual misconduct thing. No means no and that shouldn't be too to understand. Now there are women claiming men made them feel uncomfortable and failed never mentioned it at the time and somehow making a deal about it years later is courageous. If they were assaulted, or repeatedly harrased after they told their harraser to stop, all power to them for coming forward and getting it dealt with, but there are a lot of stuff they are comming out with that is so minor, that it could have been handled at the time, by simply telling the guy to stop what he was doing. The whole thing is dicouraging communication between the sexes at vital moments, that only compiles the problem and unfortunately helps deligitimise women that have ligitimately been wronged and deserve justice and compassion.


While logically the word antisemitic ought to apply to all people of middle eastern descent, in actual fact it has always only referred to hostility toward Jews. The English language, in which we drive on a parkway and park on our driveways, has many peculiarities.


He who controls the language controls the masses

George Orwell


Read between the lines ?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:91923
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.